:THE: PRINCIPLE : 
 :THEsPOLICY:AND: 
 : THE '.PARTY: 
 
 E ' J ' W HEELED 
 

 .* 
 
 
 REESE LIBRARY 
 
 - HI-. 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 C/.7S.V ;Vo. 
 
 $* 
 
 *b*? <y3 
 
 r^>JF* 
 
 '$SU 
 
 ,2^** 
 
 "* 
 
 VJ^ k ^W& A.V VJ&4* j v 
 
 *$^J^^^/^ZV^i^"- 
 
 ^ft^l 3gj^ v,^ ^P^. SgM^ ^J 
 i^? ^l^ft^^s -I^^? ^RF^-ft-ate 
 
 ^ * ^A >J 
 
PROHIBITION: 
 
 i 
 THE PRINCIPLE. THE POLICY AND 
 
 THE PARTY. 
 
 i 
 
 A Dispassionate Study of the Arguments for and 
 against Prohibitory Law, and the Reasons Gov- 
 erning the Political Action of its Advocates. 
 
 Unsettled questions have r r mpr C v on me peace of nations." 
 
 GARFIELD. 
 
 BY 
 
 E. J. WHEELER. 
 
 NEV." YOKK: 
 
 JOHN R. ANDERSON CO. 
 
 150 Nassau Street. 
 
 1889. 
 
r< 
 
 Copyright, 1H8<>- 
 
 Y 
 
 E. J. W H E is; u . 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 PART I. THE PRINCIPLE 1 
 
 L THE LEGAL PHASE OF THE SUBJECT. 3 
 
 2. TWO VIEWS OF THE PROVINCE OF 
 
 GOVERNMENT 7 
 
 3. JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT 
 
 SPENCER 10 
 
 4. THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY 21 
 A. THE SIN PER SE 27 
 
 6. THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE 
 
 WINES 30 
 
 7. THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF 
 
 ALCOHOL 39 
 
 8. DRINK AND CRIME 49 
 
 9. DRINK AND DEATH . 57 
 
 10. THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK . 67 
 
 11. POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON 76 
 
 12. THE PLEASURE OF DRINK. ... 88 
 
 13. RECAPITULATION 92 
 
 PART II, THE POLICY 94 
 
 1. THE INQUIRY INSTITUTED BY THE 
 
 CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. ... 97 
 
 2. THE RESULT IN MAINE 108 
 
 3. THE RESULT IN VERMONT 121 
 
 4. THE RESULT IN KANSAS 124 
 
 95278 > 
 
11. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 5. THE RESULT IN IOWA 129 
 
 6. THE RESULT IN RHODE ISLAND. . 133 
 
 7. THE ATTITUDE OF THE LIQUOR 
 
 DEALERS 135 
 
 8. LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF 
 
 PROHIBITION 138 
 
 9. THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHI- 
 
 BITION l-!8 
 
 PART III. THE PARTY 157 
 
 1. CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED 
 
 THROUGH EITHER OLD PARTY? . . 1<>3 
 
 2. THE BALANCE OF POWER PLAN . . 171 
 
 3. THE NON- PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION . 175 
 
 4. THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PARTY . 1 So 
 
 5. IS PUBLIC SENTIMENT RriADYr . .190 
 
 6. OTHER ISSUES OF THE 1>AY . 1 ( ->5 
 
 AP.FENDIX 
 
 '207 
 
PART I. THE PRINCIPLE. 
 
 IS PROHIBITION IN ACCORD WITH WISE PRIN- 
 CIPLES OF STATESMANSHIP ? 
 
 " No legislation founded on unsound principles can accomplish a 
 permanent good, whatever be the present seeming. "PREFACE TO 
 BISHOP'S STATUTORY CRIMES. 
 
 " MEN are four," says an Arabic proverb : 
 
 "He who knows not, and knows not he knows 
 not. He is a fool ; shun him. 
 
 " He who knows not, and knows he knows not. 
 He is simple ; teach him. 
 
 " He who knows, and knows not he knows. He 
 is asleep ; wake him. 
 
 " He who knows, and knows that he knows. 
 He is wise ; follow him." 
 
 The only difficulty with this, as with so many 
 other wise deliverances, lies in its application. 
 For it frequently happens that the man who knows 
 not that he knows not, and the man who knows 
 that he knows, manifest the same characteristics, 
 being equally positive and equally sincere. If 
 emphasis in assertion is to be sole guide in deciding 
 the righteousness of a cause, we shall be forced 
 generally to conclude that each side is right. 
 
 Certainly this would be the case in the discus- 
 
 i 
 
2 THE PRINCIPLE. 
 
 sion of Prohibition, which has been characterized 
 011 both sides with much warmth of feeling and a 
 consequent warmth of utterance. It has been 
 made a theme of heated controversy in the realm 
 of science, of philosophy, and of religion. It is a 
 question that touches on one side vested interests 
 of vast proportions, and, on another, social habits, 
 that have become rooted in custom and appetite. 
 Add to these causes of contention, those which 
 have arisen of late years in the realm of politics, 
 and it is not, perhaps, to be wondered at that the 
 subject is rarely approached in the calm spirit of 
 philosophic inquiry. What has been written or 
 spoken has, almost invariably, taken the form of a 
 plea by an advocate or an assault by an adversary. 
 There is, of course, in all public movements, an 
 important place for impassioned appeal and in- 
 vective. Light without heat is as sterile in the 
 moral as in the physical world. But there is an 
 equally important place for the calm arid impartial 
 consideration of facts and principles. 
 
 Prohibition is something more than a sentiment. 
 It is a definite legislative enactment proposed as a 
 remedy for certain ills. It is not enough to prove 
 that those ills exist. That they do exist, proves 
 the need of some remedy, and their magnitude 
 proves the urgency of that need ; but it can not 
 prove that the remedy proposed is the proper one, 
 nor what is the proper mode of its application. 
 
 Before Prohibition can be accepted as a remedy 
 
THE LEGAL PHASE OF THE SUBJECT. 6 
 
 for the drink-evil, three questions must be asked 
 and answered, namely : 
 
 1. Is it in accord with wise principles of states- 
 manship ? 
 
 2. Does it, in actual operation, give reasonable 
 assurance of being an efficient and practicable 
 policy? 
 
 3. Can it be attained, and at what sacrifices? 
 To these three questions Parts I, II, and III 
 
 of this work are respectively directed. 
 
 1. The Legal Phase of the Subject. 
 
 In considering the governmental principles in- 
 volved in prohibitory law, the legal and constitu- 
 tional rights of government are those which 
 naturally call for first consideration. What rights 
 a State possesses, and what rights it is wise to 
 exercise, are, however, entirely distinct questions. 
 In other words, the legal right and the moral right 
 are by no means the same. The Government has, 
 for instance, at all times, a legal right to declare 
 war, but not the moral right to do so, except, for 
 sufficient cause. 
 
 The legal right (without reference now to the 
 moral right) of the government over all forms of 
 trade and traffic is one that has been firmly estab- 
 lished for generations. It can, under law, regulate, 
 suppress, or destroy any form of traffic which it 
 considers inimical to the well-being of the State. 
 " It is the undoubted and reserved power of every 
 here," said the United States Supreme 
 
4 THE LEGAL PHASE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 Court," as a political body, to decide * * * what 
 " kind of property and business it will tolerate and 
 " protect." Trade and traffic are, indeed, the 
 outgrowth of organized society. The appetite for 
 meat is one present to the savage ; but the traffic 
 in meat-stuffs, the barter and sale, is possible only 
 under social organization of some sort, and social 
 organization is possible only under some form of 
 law. Since then, all traffic is, in a sense, the 
 creature of law, the power of law to impose upon 
 it whatever conditions may be necessary, has been 
 one recognized in every form of government. It 
 is doubtful if any State could exist that did not 
 retain this power. As a matter of fact, a very 
 large proportion of the acts of legislation 5n all 
 governments, are but exercises of this power o\v.r 
 the commercial transactions among its peop. ti- 
 lt is of first importance to bear in mind that 
 Prohibition deals with the traffic in liquor with 
 the acts of barter and sale, not the act of drink- 
 ing. Practically, this distinction may amount to 
 little ; but legally it is a distinction of vital im- 
 portance. The law that forbids a man to sell a 
 certain commodity and the law that forbids him 
 to use it, may be very wide apart in the principles 
 of jurisprudence involved, for the act of selling is 
 an act of public consequence, while the act of 
 using may or may not be. The act of drinking a 
 glass of liquor, for instance, is one that may affect 
 no one but the man himself who drinks ; but 
 offering for sale to the public the same glass of 
 
THE LEGAL PHASE OF THE SUBJECT. 5 
 
 liquoi is an act that is of a public character and 
 affects the public interest. 
 
 For four hundred years, the laws of England 
 have recognized in the liquor traffic a proper sub- 
 ject for legislative action. As early as 1603 an 
 act forbidding a publican, under the penalty of 
 ten pounds, to allow men to stay and tipple in his 
 house, was passed, and since then a long series of 
 nearly five hundred regulative acts have gone on 
 the records of English jurisprudence. 
 
 Similarly, in the United States the traffic has 
 from the first been recognized as a fit subject for 
 legislative action. In the Continental Congress, 
 February 27, 1774, a resolution was passed as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " Resolved, That it be recommended to the sev- 
 eral legislatures of the United States imme- 
 diately to pass laws the most effectual for put- 
 ting an immediate stop to the pernicious practice 
 of distilling grain, by which the most extensive 
 evils are likely to be derived if not quickly 
 prevented." 
 
 Here, then, in the birthplace of the American 
 Republic, as well as in the wide variet} r of statute 
 and constitutional laws, regulative, restrictive, or 
 prohibitive, enacted in every State of the nation 
 since, the barter and sale of liquor has been rec- 
 ognized as a public affair, subject to public con- 
 trol. 
 
 Prohibition, then, whether or not it is a wise 
 exercise of power, would not inject any new and 
 
6 TEE LEGAL PHASE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 strange principles into our system of jurisprudence. 
 In its legal aspect, it is an evolution, not a revolu- 
 tion. Every license law enacted is an assertion of 
 the Government's right to determine the condi- 
 tions on which the traffic shall exist. " I admit as 
 inevitable," said Justice McKean, of the United 
 States Supreme Court, "that if the State has 
 "power to restrain by license, to any extent, she 
 "has the discretionary power to judge of the 
 "limit, and may go to the limit of prohibiting it 
 " altogether."* 
 
 In the city of New York, for illustration, the 
 Board of Excise Commissioners, in 1887, deter- 
 mined that the number of licenses for the sale of 
 liquor should not be increased. (Report, Dec. 31, 
 1887, p. 8.) The number issued at that time was 
 8,817, or one for about every 160 of the popula- 
 tion. In effect, therefore, by this determination, 
 one hundred and fifty-nine out of one hundred 
 and sixty persons were prohibited from selling 
 liquors. Had any one of these one hundred and 
 fifty-nine persons attempted to sell, he rendered 
 himself subject to fine or imprisonment. By what 
 principle of jurisprudence could it be maintained 
 that the State has the legal right to prohibit one 
 hundred and fifty-nine persons, but has not the 
 same right to prohibit the one hundred and 
 sixtieth person? 
 
 Indeed, the question of law is no longer open 
 
 * License cases, 5 Howard, 504. For similar utterances see also 
 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p 727; also Bishop's Statutory 
 Crimes, 995. - 
 
TWO VIEWS OF THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT. 7 
 
 for discussion. The Supreme Court of the United 
 States has spoken at least twice on this question 
 in a way that can not be mistaken. On March 6, 
 1847, the Court affirmed the full power of the 
 State to regulate, restrain, or prohibit the traffic 
 altogether. (License cases, 5 How. 504). This 
 decision was concurred in by every member of the 
 court, in spite of the fact that two of the most 
 illustrious of American jurists Daniel Webster 
 and Rufus Choate pleaded the case of the liquor 
 dealers. 
 
 Another decision, equally emphatic, and on this 
 point equally unanimous, was given by the 
 Supreme Court December 5, 1887. (For the text 
 of this decision, see Appendix, note A). Those 
 who deem of importance the political character of 
 the Court, in weighing its decisions, should not 
 fail to note that in 1847 a majority of the justices 
 were Democrats, and in 1887, a majority were 
 Republicans. At two different periods, therefore, 
 forty years apart, the highest Court of the land has 
 unanimously affirmed the right of a State, under 
 the Federal Constitution, to enact prohibitory 
 law. The legal right in the case, then, is a 
 settled one. 
 
 2. Two "Views of the Province of Government. 
 
 But the constitutionality of a law does not 
 prove the wisdom of it. The moral right of a 
 Government to enact certain laws is one beyond 
 and above the question of mere legal right. 
 Whether Prohibition is a proper exercise of the 
 
8 TWO VIEWS OF THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 functions of Government, is not a question to be 
 decided by the Courts, whose duty is to interpret 
 law as it is, rather than to decide what it should 
 be. 
 
 From the days of Solon, the proper functions 
 of Government have furnished to philosophers a 
 fascinating theme for study and discussion. The 
 old maxim, " The king can do no wrong," simpli- 
 fied the discussion wherever it was accepted, by 
 making the will of the one governing the only 
 limitation in the functions of government. But 
 " the divine right of kings " has given way to the 
 divine right of majorities, and the old maxim has 
 been replaced with one that it is perhaps equally 
 necessary to take cum grano salis, namely : " The 
 voice of the people is the voice of God." 
 
 In undertaking to prescribe the limits for the 
 government of majorities, the social philosophers 
 of the nineteenth century have divided, broadly 
 speaking, into two divergent schools. By one 
 school, it is held that with the advance of civiliza- 
 tion and the moral progress of the individual, the 
 need for civil law grows less and less, and 
 restraints of government should become fewer 
 and fewer. Their view is popularly expressed in 
 the saying : " The best government is the one 
 " that governs least." 
 
 By the other school, it is held that the advance 
 of civilization, the increasing density of popula- 
 tion, and the ever-multiplying complexity of 
 social and industrial forces, render necessary more 
 
TWO VIEWS OF THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT. 9 
 
 and more legislation, defining more and more 
 minutely the. metes and bounds of individual lib- 
 erty and the conditions of industrial activity. 
 
 With the advanced leaders of the former school 
 i the function of government is held to consist sim- 
 | ply in "the administration of justice." Further 
 than thi it should not go, and cannot go without 
 usurping rights. It should prevent or punish acts 
 of violence and fraud whatever is an infringe- 
 ment by one upon the equal rights of another. 
 But laws fostering industry, establishing public 
 schools, maintaining charitable institutions, guard- 
 ing the public health, making public improve- 
 ments and performing public services such as the 
 carrying of mails, all such laws are considered as 
 beyond the proper domain of Government. Let 
 all these affairs be left to individual effort, is the 
 theory, and let the law attend simply to defending 
 each man in his rights and executing justice. 
 
 The tendency of the other school is in the con- 
 trary direction. Instead of abolishing the public 
 school system, they would add to it compulsory 
 education. Instead of destroying the public postal 
 service, they would re-enforce it with a postal 
 telegraph system. Instead of calling hands off in 
 case of industry, they would lay heavier hands on 
 in view of the development of what they term 
 " monopolies " and " trusts." Instead of lessening 
 the Governmental regulation of railroads, they 
 advocate the ultimate ownership by the Govern- 
 ment of all lines of transportation. 
 
10 JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 
 
 Along these two divergent lines are arranged in 
 different gradations the social philosophers of our 
 day. At the extreme of one is the Anarchist cry- 
 ing for no law and no Government ; at the extreme 
 of the other is the Communist, crying for the 
 ownership of all things by the Government. 
 
 It can be readily surmised from which direction 
 corne the objections to Prohibition. There is 
 nothing in the theory of Prohibition that conflicts 
 with the tenets of the latter school. With this 
 school it is chiefly a question of expediency. But 
 the adherents of the former school challenge the 
 propriety as well as the practicability of such law. 
 It is with them not simply a question of fact or 
 possibility, but a question of principle. 
 
 It is the intention, in these pages, to keep the 
 subject disentangled, as far as possible, from all 
 questions not necessarily involved in it. Without 
 proceeding, then, to any further comparison 
 between the claims of these diverging schools, it 
 is desired to look more closely into the nature of 
 the objections brought by the former school against 
 the principle of prohibitory law to see, in fact, 
 whether there is any real and necessary conflict of 
 principles. 
 
 3. John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. 
 
 The two most popular and widely read defend- 
 ers of the theory that the " best government is the 
 one that governs least," are Herbert Spencer and 
 John Stuart Mill. 
 
JOHN STUART MILL ANT) HERBERT SPENCER. 11 
 
 In his "Essay on Liberty," Mill defines at 
 length what he conceives to be the proper func- 
 tions of Government and the principle that should 
 govern all legislation. He sums up his discussion 
 of the question as follows : 
 
 " That principle is, that the sole end for which 
 mankind are warranted, individually or collec-j 
 tively, in interfering with the liberty of action! 
 of any of their number, is self-protection. That 
 the only purpose for which power can be right- 
 fully exercised over any member of a civilized 
 community, against his will, is to prevent harm 
 to others. He cannot rightfully be compelled 
 to do or forbear, because better for him to do 
 so, because it will make him happier, because, 
 in the opinion of others, to do so would be 
 wise or even right. These are good reasons for 
 remonstrating with him, or persuading him, or 
 entreating him, but not for compelling him or 
 visiting him with any evil in case he do .other- 
 wise. To justify that, the conduct from which 
 it is desired to deter him must be calculated to 
 produce evil to some one else." (^Introduction to 
 Essay on Liberty, p. 23.) 
 
 The same writer again puts into still more 
 
 concise form what he considers to be fundamental 
 
 maxims of government. He says : 
 
 " The maxims are, first, that the individual is not 
 
 accountable to society for his actions, in so far 
 
 as these concern the interests of no person 
 
 but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion 
 
12 JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 
 
 and avoidance by other people, if thought 
 necessary by them for their own good, are the 
 only measures by which society can justifiably 
 express its dislike or disapprobation of his con- 
 duct. 
 
 " Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial 
 to the interests of others, the individual is ac- 
 countable, and may be subjected to either social 
 or legal punishments, if society is of opinion 
 that the one or the other is requisite for its pro- 
 tection." {Essay on Liberty, p. 182.) 
 Almost identical with these views are those set 
 forth by Herbert Spencer. In Social Statics, he 
 thus defines the functions of the State : 
 u To enforce the fundamental law [of equal free 
 dom] to take care that every man has free- 
 dom to do all that he wills, provided that he 
 infringes not the equal freedom of any other 
 man this is the special purpose for which the 
 civil power exists." {Social Statics, p. 841.) 
 Over and over he reiterates this as the central 
 thought of his system. " The duty of the State is 
 " to protect to enforce the law of equal free- 
 " dom, to maintain men's rights, or, as we com- 
 " monly express it to administer justice. "- 
 {Social Statics, p. 280.) 
 
 Further than this, he denies that the State has 
 any right to go, but in nothing are both Mill and 
 Spencer more emphatic than in asserting the 
 duty of the State to this extent. Failure here on 
 the part of the State, failure to furnish this needed 
 
JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 13 
 
 protection, is, they conceive, failure in the very 
 end and purpose of Government. And in fact, 
 whatever difference of opinion there may be among 
 sociologists as to whether the 'sphere of Govern- 
 ment extends beyond this limit, there is no 
 difference whatever if Anarchism be not con- 
 sidered on the right and duty of Government 
 within this limit. 
 
 In applying these principles, Mill, considering 
 the rights which the State has over trade, says : 
 "Again, trade is a social act. Whoever under- 
 takes to sell any description of goods to the 
 public, does what affects the interest of other 
 persons, and of society in general ; and thus his 
 conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdic- 
 tion of society." (JEssay on Liberty, p. 183.) 
 This extract, standing by itself, would seem to 
 yield to the State at once the right of Prohibition. 
 But elsewhere Mill shows that he has no intention 
 of allowing such an application. Coming directly, 
 in the course of his discussion, to the subject of 
 Prohibition, he says : 
 
 " On the other hand, there are questions relating 
 to the interference with trade which are essen- 
 tially questions of liberty ; such as the Maine law, 
 already touched upon ; the prohibition of the 
 importation of opium into China ; the restric- 
 tion of the sale of poisons ; all cases, in short, 
 where the object of the interference is to make 
 it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular 
 commodity. These interferences are objection- 
 
14 JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 
 
 able, not as infringements on the liberty of the 
 producer or seller, but on that of the buyer." 
 (Essay on Liberty, p. 185.) 
 
 The idea here seems to be that since the sale of 
 liquor, opium, and poisons, is voluntary on the 
 oart of both buyer and seller, it is not, in itself, a 
 violation of any one's- rights, and hence the State 
 is not justified in interfering. The logic of this 
 reasoning tells with equal force, it is evident, 
 against restrictive laws as well. Mill does not 
 hesitate to admit this. He says : 
 " To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making 
 them more difficult to be obtained, is a measure 
 differing only in degree from their entire pro- 
 hibition ; and would be justified only if that 
 were justifiable." (p. 194.) 
 Whoever follows Mr. Mill, therefore, to the end 
 of his logic, must, in consistency, oppose all re- 
 strictive laws and favor an unrestricted traffic in 
 liquor. Mill explains himself farther: 
 u # * * * jt i s t o this class surely [of individual 
 acts as distinguished from social acts] that the 
 act of drinking fermented liquors belongs. Sell- 
 ing fermented liquors, however, is trading, and 
 trading is a social act. But the infringement 
 complained of is not on the liberty of the seller, 
 but on that of the buyer' and consumer ; hence 
 the State might just as well forbid him to drink 
 wine, as purposely make it impossible." (p. 
 172.) Finally, in reply to a letter written by the 
 Secretary of the United Kingdom Temperance 
 
JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 15 
 
 Alliance, in which it was argued that the drink 
 traffic invaded his " social rights " by destroying 
 his sense of security, by creating disorder, by in- 
 creasing taxes, by hindering his free moral and 
 intellectual development, and by weakening 
 society, Mill says : 
 
 " A theory of social rights the like of which 
 probably never before found its way into 
 distinct language, being nothing short of this, 
 that it is the absolute social right of every 
 individual that every other individual shall act 
 in everyTespect exactly as he ought ; that who- 
 ever fails thereof in the smallest particular, 
 violates my social right, and entitles me to 
 demand from the legislature the removal of the 
 grievance." 
 
 This, then, seems to be, in brief, the view of 
 Mill : That Government has no right to interfere 
 with an individual's acts, until they infringe on 
 some other individual's rights ; that the drinking 
 of liquor does not, of itself, infringe on another's 
 rights, and that the sale of liquor, being entirely 
 voluntary on the part of both buyer and 
 seller, Government has no right to interfere at the 
 demand of some third person. In other words, if 
 A sells liquor to B, the rights of C and D are not 
 disturbed by the act of sale. It is true B may be- 
 come drunk and then by an act of violence disturb 
 those rights ; but until he reaches that point, the 
 law can not step in. It is the act of violence, but 
 not the sale nor yet the drinking of the liquor, that 
 
16 JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCEE. 
 
 infringed the rights of C and D. The law can 
 forbid and punish the violence, but as there is no 
 necessary connection between the sale of liquor 
 and the violence, the law can not justifiably punish 
 or forbid the sale. 
 
 So far the logic seems to be clear, and the 
 conclusion correct, if Mill's limitations for Gov- 
 ernment be accepted. Considering each specific 
 act of purchase and sale by itself, there seems to 
 be in it no infringement on another's rights. But 
 is there not something beside these specific acts, 
 something antecedent to them ? Before a sale is 
 made, must there not have been, logically at least, 
 two prior conditions established namely, first, the 
 facilities for trade, and, second, the permission (and 
 protection) of organized society (Government) to 
 conduct the proposed trade ? The first of these 
 conditions is supplied by the man himself, but 
 the second is supplied, either tactily or explicitly, 
 by Xrovernment. If, as Mill says, " trade is a 
 social act," and " comes within the jurisdiction of 
 society," is not the consent of society a logical 
 prerequisite to the establishment of this trade? 
 Society, indeed, does more than permit ; it protects 
 as well, by its courts and police, the trade thus 
 established. 
 
 It becomes necessary then to go back beyond 
 those specific acts of sale, which may not be, in 
 themselves, and may not always involve, even in 
 their consequences, any violation of rights, and to 
 consider that first step necessary to be taken, 
 
JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 17 
 
 namely, the consent of Government either implied 
 or written. 
 
 If we do this, we shall find the epitomized argu- 
 ment now running about as follows : 
 
 A desires to sell liquor to B and others. But 
 before doing so, since " trade is a social act " and 
 " within the jurisdiction of society," it is necessary 
 for him to have the consent of society and the 
 protection it alone can give. Now, since it is 
 agreed on all hands that the first and all-important 
 duty of Government is " to protect to enforce the 
 law of equal freedom, to maintain men's rights," 
 the first question that Government is bound to ask, 
 before granting the protection desired, is, Will the 
 establishment of this traffic interfere with the per- 
 formance of my duty to protect the rights of my 
 citizens ? 
 
 The question then is no longer whether the spe- 
 cific act of selling or drinking interferes with the 
 rights of others ; but whether the traffic itself, as 
 a whole, interferes with those rights, and with the 
 performance of the Government's duty to protect 
 them. 
 
 It may be objected here that if the specific acts 
 of sale do not interfere with those rights which 
 society is bound to protect, then the traffic as a 
 whole does not interfere, since it is nothing but 
 the aggregation of such sales. This, however, is 
 a mistake. The traffic consists in much more than 
 that, for it means not only the supplying, but the 
 stimulating of a demand for liquor. It not only 
 2 ^ 
 
18 JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 
 
 gratifies, but it incites the appetite. It not only 
 does this in the ordinary modes of business, such 
 as advertising and adding attractions of many 
 sorts ; but the very existence of the place of drink- 
 ing is, of necessity, more or less of an incitement. 
 If it be admitted that selling liquor to B is not 
 violating the rights of C and D, can it be further 
 said that inciting B to drink is not a violation of 
 the rights of C and D ? 
 
 Elsewhere Mill recognizes this feature of the 
 business as an important one. He says : 
 " The interest, however, of these [liquor] dealers 
 in promoting intemperance is a real evil and 
 justifies the State in imposing restrictions and 
 requiring guarantees which but for that justifi- 
 cation would be infringements of legitimate 
 liberty." 
 
 What guarantees ? That they will not promote 
 intemperance ? Suppose they can not give any 
 such guarantee (and they can not) what then? 
 The fact is that if the difference between restric- 
 tion and Prohibition is, as Mill has said, simply a 
 difference of degree, then in admitting that 
 restriction is rendered justifiable by the "real 
 k ' evil " of the traffic, he has admitted that Prohibi- 
 tion, which is but a more severe form of restric- 
 tion, is rendered justifiable if the less severe form 
 proves inadequate. But " these interferences are 
 " objectionable," he says, " not as infringements on 
 " the liberty of the producer or seller, but on 
 " that of the buyer." How ? By not promoting 
 
JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 19 
 
 the facilities for supplying the demands of his 
 appetite. But is the State bound to furnish facil- 
 ties for supplying the demand for drink ? If not, 
 (and Mill would be the first to maintain that it is 
 not) is the State bound to withhold legislation 
 because it will interfere with that supply ? If the 
 duty of the State consists simply in the protection 
 of her citizens from encroachments on their rights, 
 it is evident that a refusal to enact laws necessary 
 for the proper performance of that duty, solely 
 because they will affect injuriously the gratifica- 
 tion of appetite, is far from consistent. It is yield- 
 ing, in that case, to a consideration to which, 
 according to Mill's theory of government, it has 
 no right even to listen. 
 
 That laws for the restriction of the liquor traffic 
 are necessary to the proper performance of this 
 duty of Government a duty on which all sociol- 
 ogists are agreed Mill himself admits. The same 
 thing is implied by the legislation of all civilized 
 Governments. It is implied by the legislation of 
 this nation from almost the very beginning. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that in matters affect- 
 ing trade, it is not, with civil government, merely 
 a question whether to interfere or to abstain from 
 interference. In matters of personal conduct, the 
 question assumes that phase, but not in matters 
 of trade. The State must either protect or pro- 
 hibit here, for wt trade is a social act." It must 
 refuse permission or else grant it. Silence does 
 not mean non-interference ; it means protection in 
 
20 JOHN STUART MILL AND HERBERT SPENCER. 
 
 the same or similar measure as is accorded to other 
 traffic, and the courts act on that principle 
 when questions involving the property rights of 
 liquor, the legality of contracts made in pursuit 
 of the business, and similar questions arise. The 
 trade that is not prohibited is protected. 
 
 It is quite probable, however, that the reader 
 has discerned a difficulty in applying these reflec- 
 tions concerning trade to the act of manufacture. 
 To sell, is an act of trade. To manufacture for 
 purposes of sale, is equally an act of trade. But 
 to manufacture an article for one's own use or 
 enjoyment is not an act of trade. Whatever 
 control Government can claim over the sale of 
 liquor as a " social act," is not to be claimed over 
 the manufacture of liquor unless it be manufac- 
 ture/or sale. On this point a valid objection can 
 be raised by those who occupy Mill's ground, 
 against the prohibitory laws now in force. But as 
 a matter of fact, while the prohibitory provisions 
 embedded in the Constitutions of Maine, Kansas 
 and Rhode Island, do, literally construed, forbid 
 the manufacture of liquor even for one's own use r 
 the legislatures have never made this literal inter- 
 pretation when enacting laws for the enforcement 
 of these prohibitory clauses. The prohibition, as 
 applied, extends only to the acts of trade.* Men 
 may drink liquor, under Prohibition, or they may, 
 
 *The proposed constitutional amendment for the State of New York 
 (Bill No. 227, in Assembly, January 26, 1888,) avoids the objection noted 
 above. It forbids not the manufacture, but the lauuuluctuie for 
 sale." 
 
THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY. 21 
 
 as the law is generally construed, manufacture it 
 for their own use. So far the claim to personal 
 liberty is respected. It is only when they enter 
 upon its barter and sale that the law confronts 
 them. 
 
 4. The Question of Personal Liberty. 
 This distinction made by the law between the 
 dealer and the drinker furnishes a clue to the pur- 
 pose of the law. That purpose has often been 
 conceived to be the reform of the drinker. Hora- 
 tio Seymour, Governor of New York in 1854, in a 
 message to the Legislature vetoing a bill looking 
 toward Prohibition, stated his objection to such 
 laws as follows : 
 
 " All experience shows that temperance, like 
 other virtues, is not produced by law-makers, 
 but by the influence of education, morality, and 
 religion." 
 
 The assumption here is that the object of the 
 law is to produce the virtue of temperance to 
 protect a man from his own weakness. The ; 
 same idea has been stated more recently by a Con- \ 
 gressman of the United States, as follows : 
 " But the attempt of one man or set of men, 
 . whether for the good of society ' or any other I 
 cause, to reform the moral conduct of others by/ 
 outward force, has always failed in the past, and) 
 always will in the future." (Speech in Corsicana, 
 Texas, in 1888, by Roger Q. Mills, U. S. Con- 
 gressman from Texas.) 
 Notice the law is here described as an at- 
 
22 THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY. 
 
 tempt " to reform the moral conduct by out- 
 "ward force" that is, to coerce a man into mor- 
 ality. 
 
 Samuel J. Tilden, in 1855, while a candidate for 
 Attorney General of New York, put this same 
 objection to prohibitory law in still more forcible 
 language, namely : 
 
 " To-day, while it [the Democratic party] is in 
 favor of sobriety and good morals, it disowns a 
 system of corceive legislation which can not 
 produce them, but must create many serious 
 evils which violates constitutional guarantees 
 and sound principles of legislation invades the 
 rightful domain of the individual judgment and 
 conscience, and takes a step backward toward 
 that barbarian age when the wages of labor, the 
 prices of commodities, a man's food and cloth- 
 ing, were dictated to him by a Government 
 calling itself paternal." 
 
 These objections, it will be observed, are almost 
 identical in nature witli those urged by John Stu- 
 art Mill, and which have been considered in the 
 preceding pages. The purpose of this prohibitory 
 law is conceived to be "to reform moral conduct," 
 to promote total abstinence by "coercive legisla- 
 " tion," and believing, with Thomas Jefferson, that 
 " the legitimate powers of Government extend to 
 " such acts only as are injurious to others " 
 ('Thomas Jefferson, vol. viii. p. 400), Mr. Tilden 
 and Mr. Seymour naturally object to a law 
 which presents itself to them as an attempt to 
 
THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY. 23 
 
 regulate a man's conduct, chiefly because it isinju- j 
 rious to himself. 
 
 It is needless to deny that their conception of 
 the law is the one that has obtained the widest 
 acceptance, and the objections growing out 
 of it are the ones most frequently urged 
 and with the strongest effect. Men every where 
 resent Governmental interference with conduct 
 which affects themselves alone. "If I want to 
 " drink, I have the right to do it," is the popular 
 way of putting the case. " This is a free country," 
 said a noted orator in the heat of the last cam- 
 paign, " and if a man wants to get drunk, he 
 " has a right to do so and take the consequences." 
 ' In truth," said Lord Bramwell, of England, 
 u these liquor laws are either to make men better 
 " who do not want to be made better, or to make 
 " men better who have not self-control, and in both 
 " cases at the expense of others." 
 
 By many persons this conception of the law is 
 accepted without hesitation. Of course it is the 
 purpose of Prohibition, so they think, to compel 
 men to stop drinking what else can it be ? It 
 would be a genuine surprise to many to be told 
 that any one thinks of denying that this is the 
 purpose of the law. 
 
 Yet, as a matter of fact, the persistent iteration 
 of this as the purpose of the law, has been met 
 with an equally persistent denial from the lead- 1 
 ing advocates of Prohibition. It would be difficult ' 
 to mention a single sustained argument for Prohi- 
 
24 THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY. 
 
 bition that does not- disavow any such purpose in 
 view. Judge Pitman, of the Superior Court of 
 Massachusetts, in his able work on " Alcohol and 
 " the State," says : " If we have proved anything in 
 "the course of this discussion, we have proved 
 " exactly this : that the liquor dealer is doing 
 " ' harm to others ' " others, that is, than the 
 dealer and the drinker, and this point he regards 
 as " the central basis upon which the advocate of 
 "the suppression of the liquor traffic rests his case." 
 (pp. 119, 120.) He says further : 
 " To this extent at least [forbidding the sale of 
 liquor] it seems to us that Government not only 
 may, but ought to go. And no prohibitory laws yet 
 enacted have attempted to go further." (p. 127.) 
 He makes still clearer his conception of the 
 purpose of the law as being, not protection for the 
 drinker from his own acts, not the reform of moral 
 conduct, but protection to others, in the following 
 words : 
 
 " The law [of Prohibition] does not propose to 
 deal directly with the personal habits of men. 
 It lays its hand on a traffic. Sales are public 
 acts, and always within the domain of law. 
 The law, for sufficient reasons of policy, pre- 
 scribes the manner and modes of sales of real 
 and personal property, makes void what it 
 chooses, regulates what it deems dangerous, 
 forbids, under penalties, what it thinks mis- 
 chievous. If it lays either a regulating, a restrain- 
 ing, 01 a prohibiting hand upon the traffic in 
 
THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY. 25 
 
 intoxicants, it does no differently from what it 
 does in regard to adulterated meat, unwhole- 
 some meat, dangerous explosives, fire-works, 
 obscene publications, lottery tickets, and num- 
 erous other subjects of sale. The only ques- 
 tions society asks, are: Is the trade injurious? 
 Is it sufficiently so to call for the interference." 
 0^.91,92.) 
 
 John B. Finch, who was, at the time of his 
 death, liead of the Order of Good Templars and 
 Chairman of the National Committee of the Pro- 
 hibition party, advocated prohibitory law on the 
 same principle as Judge Pitman, namely, to secure, 
 not the reformation of the drinker, but the pro- j 
 tection. of society against the evils of drink. In his f 
 work, "The People vs. The Liquor Traffic," he 
 says : 
 
 "Prohibitory liquor law$ifl nowise say what a 
 man shall eat or what he shall drink. They 
 simply aim to protect society from the perni- 
 cious influence of trade, which is a social institu- 
 tion. In no respect do they aim to interfere 
 with the private liberties of the individual until 
 those private liberties create public nuisances." 
 It is not neces' ary to add to these quotations. 
 It is sufficient to say that the lines of reasoning 
 on which prohibitory laws are advocated at the 
 present time, are almost uniformly those laid down 
 in the sentences quoted above from Judge Pitman 
 and John B. Finch. It is true that u the reform 
 " of moral conduct " is hoped for as a result of pro- 
 
26 THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY. 
 
 hibitory legislation. It is hoped that in the ab- 
 sence of the usual public incitements to drink 
 men will cease to drink ; but they are not com- 
 pelled to cease, not even indirectly, for the art of 
 distillation is not so costly or difficult, but that, 
 even under prohibitory law, households might dis- 
 til their own liquor as well as bake their own 
 bread. The farmer in Maine is accorded the 
 undisturbed right of making cider for his family, 
 and making it as hard as he pleases. All that 
 Prohibition means is that the public facilities for 
 the gratification of this appetite must cease ; that 
 the saloon shall no longer exist ; and that if men 
 insist on drinking they must satisfy their desires in 
 some other way than through the channels of 
 trade. This is all that the law, in itself, contem- 
 plates, and all that the advocates of the law urge. 
 They contend that the liquor traffic has become 
 an organized temptation ; that the saloon with all 
 its adjuncts is not in existence simply to respond 
 to a natural craving of the appetite, but to create 
 and to stimulate appetite ; that it is impossible to 
 strip the saloon of this inciting character except 
 by putting an end to its very existence. 
 
 The laws against gambling, against impurity, 
 against bribery, are advocated by many whose 
 chief reason for advocating them is the belief that 
 a " reform of- moral conduct " will be assisted by 
 them. It is not too far-fetched to suppose, even, 
 that to many the chief value of laws against theft, 
 larceny, murder, in fact laws of all kinds, lies not 
 
'THE SIN PER SK>. 27 
 
 in the fact that they are a protection fc. society 
 but that they are believed to aid in the reforma- 
 tion of society. Yet it would not do to stigmatize 
 such laws as attempts u to reform the moral con- 
 " duct of others," or to make men honest and virtu- 
 ous " by a system of coercive legislation." The 
 reform may follow, or it may even have been the 
 object of those enacting the law ; but it follows 
 not as a coerced reformation, but as a natural 
 result of the changed condition which the law has 
 created. "It is the duty of Government," says 
 Gladstone, " to make it easy to do right and hard 
 "to do wrong." Whether or not this is accepted 
 in its full signification, no one can claim that it is 
 a part of the duty of Government to make it 
 easy to do wrong. Yet this, in a certain sense, 
 seems to be just what a Government does when it 
 uses, for the barter and sale of liquor, all the 
 powers of protection which it has at command. 
 
 In brief, while a man may claim the right to 
 drink, on the ground that he injures nobody but 
 himself, can he claim as his right that the saloon s 
 which does injure somebody else, must be allowed 
 to continue in order to supply him with drink ? 
 
 5. The Sin per Se. 
 
 The right to do a thing does not, however, as 
 has been observed, imply the wisdom of doing it. 
 That the Government has a constitutional right, 
 or even a philosophical and moral right to extir- 
 pate the liquor traffic, is no proof that it would be 
 wise to exercise that right. The question of 
 
28 THE SIN" PER SE. 
 
 consequences here comes in, and ought to receive 
 attention. The Government has the constitutional 
 right and might have the moral right to declare 
 war against a stronger power ; yet it might be the 
 part of wisdom, from fear of consequences, not to 
 exercise that right. It is true that a mistaken 
 zeal sometimes impels men into the assertion that 
 consequences are not to be taken into coiisidera- 
 . tion in determining a course of conduct. "Do 
 " right, and trust the consequences to God," is, 
 when rightly applied, a motto fit for a hero. But 
 the fact is lost sight of too often, that it is only 
 by considering the consequences that one is at 
 times able to determine which of two courses is 
 right. In man}- cases it is the consequences alone 
 that determine the character of an action. Is it 
 right or wrong to defraud your neighbor? Wrong. 
 Why wrong? Not because of the consequences, 
 but because of the inherent nature of the action. 
 But is it right or wrong to drink a glass of liquor? 
 Wrong, will again be the answer of many, but 
 wrong because of the consequences, not because of 
 the inherent sinfulness of the action. Herein lies 
 the distinction made by the logicians and theologi- 
 ans between actions which are sins per_se, that is, 
 sins from the inherent character of the actions 
 themselves, and those actions which are not sins 
 per se, but are sins because of their consequences. 
 To steal a dime from a rich employer may not in- 
 volve much, if anything, in its consequences, but 
 it is just as certainly sinful as though the conse- 
 
THE SIN PER SE. 29 
 
 quences were very important. Blasphemy in the 
 midst of a desert is as certainly a sin as blasphemy 
 in a crowded city. The sin per se always results 
 from a sinful condition of the mind or heart of 
 the one committing it. The discussion whether it 
 is a sin per se to drink a glass of liquor, grows 
 really empty when the phrase is rightly under- 
 stood. The sin of such an act must lie, if at all, 
 in its harmfulness, that is, in its consequences, 
 either on the one drinking or on others. If liquor 
 were as harmless as water there would be no sin 
 of any kind in drinking it. If it is a sin to do so, 
 then it is because of its harmfulness. A sin per se 
 indicates always a rebellion of the heart against 
 the law of God prior to the commission of the 
 sin. No one will claim that the drinking of wine, 
 for instance, always indicates such an act of con- 
 scious rebellion in the mind. It may indicate just 
 that ; but it may not. 
 
 This distinction has become one of more than 
 metaphysical importance in the present contro- 
 versies. There are large religious denominations, 
 notably the Roman Catholic Church, whose the- 
 ology will not allow any tolerance, for an instant, 
 of this Manicheean heresy that the drinking of 
 wine is a sin per se. The use of the phrase 
 becomes therefore a matter of considerable practi- 
 cal importance. To base the argument for Prohi- 
 bition upon such a claim is almost certain to 
 alienate a large number of the most devout churcii 
 
30 THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 
 
 ; 
 
 members. It is arraying religion and Prohibition 
 in hostility instead of in alliance. 
 
 The question of Prohibition, then, is a question of 
 consequences as well as of principles. It is not 
 desired here, however, to enter upon the question 
 whether Prohibition actually accomplishes the 
 results aimed at ; that portion of the subject is 
 reserved for Part II. What will be considered 
 here is what consequences would follow provided 
 Prohibition were fully secured and completely 
 enforced. 
 
 6. The Controversy over Bible Wines. 
 
 One of the serious consequences which it is 
 
 claimed would ensue, is thus stated by Rev. 
 
 Dr. Howard Crosby : 
 
 " A Prohibition that would include the fermented 
 juice of the grape would be, however we might 
 try to explain it, a reflection upon our Lord 
 and upon His Holy Word, which makes wine a 
 gift of God and a token of the highest bless- 
 ings. It would be a virtual declaration that we 
 know a better way than He knew how to meet 
 the matter of human indulgence, and that He 
 was mistaken in His conduct and in His teach- 
 ing." (Homiletic Review.') 
 The same objection is stated by Rev. J. R. 
 
 Sikes, author of "The Biblical Reason Why 
 
 Prohibition is Wrong." In the preface to this 
 
 work the author says : 
 
 " We lay it down as a fundamental principle that 
 any law which makes it a criminal offense to 
 
THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 31 
 
 follow the example of Jesus Christ, or live in 
 accordance with the teachings of the Bible in 
 matters pertaining to the personal liberty in 
 eating and drinking, so fully guaranteed to us 
 in the Gospel, is anti-biblical and subversive of 
 religious as well as our civil rights. This Pro- 
 hibition does * * * * " 
 In another place the same author says : 
 " In other words, which is the greater evil ? The 
 abuse of intoxicating beverages as we have it, 
 or to destroy the faith of the masses in the 
 Bible, as a correct rule of faith and practice, 
 and to put in force a prohibitory law which 
 impeaches the wisdom of God, and arraigns 
 Jesus Christ as a criminal at a bar of human 
 tribunal. Such are the logical and natural 
 sequences of the Prohibition now advocated * 
 * * * ,"_p. 36. 
 
 Naturally these objections bring us face to face 
 with the question of Bible wines, and the dispute 
 concerning their intoxicating qualities. As the 
 question is, however, solely one of biblical scholar- 
 ship, it is hardly desirable, nor, as will appear, 
 necessary, to do more than briefly to indicate the 
 nature of the controversy. 
 
 In the Old Testament two Hebrew words, yayin 
 and tirosh, are used to designate wine. Other 
 words are used occasionally to indicate " strong 
 K wine," " red wine," " sweet wine," " mixed wine," 
 and " blood of the grape," but it is about these 
 two words that the controversy centres. An 
 
32 THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 
 
 interesting fact has been observed concerning the 
 use of these words. There are many passages where 
 wine is spoken of as a curse and where warning 
 is uttered against its use, such as (Proverbs xx. 
 1) : " Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging ; " 
 and (Proverbs xxiii. 31, 32) : " Look not thou 
 " upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his 
 44 color in the cup, when it nioveth itself aright. 
 44 At the last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth 
 44 like an adder." 
 
 In many other passages, however, wine is 
 spoken of as a blessing, and its use is commended, 
 such, for instance, as (Proverbs xxxi. 6) : 44 Give 
 44 strong drink unto him that is ready to perish 
 44 and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts;" 
 and (Isaiah Iv): 4> Ho, every one that thirsteth 
 . u * * * come, buy wine and milk without 
 44 money and without price." 
 
 Now the word tirosh is never used, with one 
 doubtful exception (Hosea iv. 11) except in 
 those passages commendatory of wine. The word 
 yayin, however, is used both in commendatory 
 and in condemnatory passages. That there was 
 some distinction in the minds of Old Testament 
 writers between the word yayin and the word 
 tirosh seems to be admitted by both sides to the 
 discussion ; but what this distinction was is the 
 source of dispute. The advocates of the two-wine 
 theory*, contend that tirosh means wine before it 
 
 * Among these are Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover, Dr. Eliphalet 
 Nott, late President of Union College, Prof. Tayler Lewis, Dr. F. R. 
 Lees, Dr. George W. Samson. 
 
THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 38 
 
 has fermented and become intoxicating, while 
 yayin is a generic term covering all kinds of wine, 
 and meaning sometimes one kind, sometimes 
 another, just as we use the word water to desig- 
 nate sometimes fresh water, sometimes salt water. 
 Those opposing this theory regard tirosh as being 
 the husbandman's name for wine, and as repre- 
 senting wine "in its germinant state in the 
 "vineyard, in the process of manufacture in the 
 "press and the vat, and, after fermentation, in its 
 " finished state, either in the store-house, where it 
 " was regarded as the reward of the husbandman's 
 a care and toil, or among the tithes, where it was 
 " expressive of gratitude to God for the fruitful- 
 "ness of the earth." (Bumstead' 's " Biblical Sanc- 
 tion for Wine," p. 67.) The word yayin, it is 
 held, was " the common every-day word for wine; 
 " the word of the consumer, the entertainer, the 
 " merchant, as tirosh was the word of the husband- 
 " man and manufacturer." (Ibid. p. 71.) These 
 opponents of the two-wine theory claim, of course, 
 that tirosh and yayin were both fermented, and 
 that there is no sanction whatever for the view 
 that tirosh was an unfermented wine. 
 
 In the New Testament, the Greek word almost 
 invariably used to designate wine is oinos. There 
 is the same dispute concerning this that exists 
 concerning yayin, one side contending that it was 
 a generic term, meaning sometimes fermented 
 and sometimes unfermented wine, the other side 
 3 
 
84 THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 
 
 contending that it means, wherever used, fer- 
 mented wine. 
 
 From this brief statement of the controversy, it 
 will be seen that to ask for a decision on this ques- 
 tion either from a legislature or by popular vote, 
 would be about as appropriate as to ask for a deci- 
 sion from the same source on the question, Who 
 built the pyramids ? or Where was Homer born ? 
 It is clearly a question to be settled by biblical 
 and philological students among themselves. All 
 that can be asked, in the matter of legislation, is 
 that it be such as will not force either side to violate 
 their convictions of religious duty. To ask that 
 a Legislature shall refuse to prohibit the sale of 
 liquor on the ground that Jesus drank it, is as 
 manifestly improper as to ask that it prohibit the 
 sale on the ground that Jesus did not drink it. 
 Surely the Legislature, or the people, are not 
 called upon to settle a controversy of this sort 
 when considering whether public interest demands 
 the extinction of the liquor traffic of to-day. 
 
 If Prohibition conflicts with the religious duties 
 or what are conceived to be such of either 
 side to the controversy, this is, of course, a serious 
 objection. But no one claims that the use of wine, 
 except at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is 
 ever a religious duty. As a matter of fact, all 
 prohibitory laws yet adopted or submitted for 
 adoption (with one exception, in Michigan, and 
 that the result of an oversight) have excepted 
 from their provisions the use of liquor for sacra- 
 
THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 35 
 
 mental purposes, and the sale for such use. Pro- 
 hibition, therefore, conflicts with no religious 
 duties. The most that can be said is that it 
 deprives many of a privilege which the teaching 
 of Scripture and the example of Christ (as they 
 conceive) gives them the right to enjoy or not 
 as they wish. In other words, because they 
 believe that Christ drank fermented wine nine- 
 teen centuries ago, they demand not only that the 
 State give them the right to drink (which it does, 
 even under Prohibition), but shall continue to 
 authorize the prosecution of the traffic, at what- 
 ever jeopardy to public interests, in order that 
 they may supply themselves with drink. 
 
 If Prohibition is a reflection upon Christ, as 
 Di. Crosby maintains, is not total abstinence 
 equally a reflection upon Christ ? Is it not even 
 much more of a reflection upon him? The law 
 declares that, for the safety of public interests, 
 the traffic in liquor must cease (Christ never 
 engaged in the traffic), while total abstinence, 
 which is enjoined as a duty by certain of the lar- 
 gest religious denominations, forbids, for similar 
 reasons of expediency, the drinking of liquor 
 except for medicinal purposes. If, indeed, the 
 doctrine of total abstinence or the law of Prohi- 
 bition implieu that the drinking or the making of 
 liquor is, like stealing, a sin per se, an act inher- 
 ently wrong, then there would be an implication 
 that Christ, if he made and drank fermented wine, 
 had committed a sin. But there is, of a certainty, 
 
36 THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 
 
 no such implication either, in the doctrine or the 
 
 law, no matter what opponents or injudicious 
 
 friends of either may say. Such a conception of 
 
 law would bring us at once into antagonism to an 
 
 almost countless array of civil ordinances and 
 
 statutes which forbid acts not sinful in themselves 
 
 but dangerous to the welfare of society. 
 
 44 An act may be declared criminal," says Pike's 
 
 History of Crime (vol. II, p. 492) " which is 
 
 "not, even in the same age, regarded as in 
 
 "itself immoral, and another may be considered 
 
 44 immoral which does not involve any legal pen- 
 
 44 alties." 
 
 Dr. Herrick Johnson has, undoubtedly, the best 
 of legal authority for the reply he has made to 
 Dr. Crosby in the following words : 
 44 The legal prohibition of an act is solely on the 
 ground of its evil effects upon society, and not at 
 all on the ground of the inherent evil of the act itself . 
 Public law does indeed make a distinction be- 
 tween the things it prohibits, classifying them 
 as evils in themselves (mala in se) and evils 
 prohibited (mala prohibita) ; but the ground of 
 their prohibition is exactly the same. Homi- 
 cide, an act evil in itself (malum in se), is pro- 
 hibited. So the building a frame house within 
 the fire limits of a city, an act not evil in itself, 
 is prohibited. Tkere is inherent moral wrong in 
 homicide. There is no inherent moral wrong in 
 building a frame house. But the law seeks to 
 prevent the one as well as the other, solely to 
 
THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 37 
 
 protect society. * * Clearly the inherent 
 rightf ulness or wrongfulness of an act has noth- 
 ing whatever to do with prohibition of it by law. 
 The amount and character of the evil effects upon 
 others are what determine whether any given 
 thing shall be prohibited or not. If the evils 
 are open, public, imperiling public interests, dis- 
 turbing public order, endangering property or 
 human life, then the ground is furnished for 
 prohibition. Ten thousand things are wrong in 
 themselves that the law never touches, and 
 never ought to touch; while things right and 
 innocent in themselves, the law often pro- 
 hibits." 
 
 " The evil effects upon others " is the ground 
 here laid down by Dr. Johnson for Prohibition of 
 the liquor traffic. " General reasons of public 
 " utility " is the phrase Judge Cooley uses when 
 speaking, in his great work on " Constitutional 
 " Limitations " (p. 728) of the basis on which laws 
 restricting or prohibiting the traffic in liquor rest. 
 Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, (case of 
 Fisher vs. McGirr) refers to the same class of laws 
 as enacted because the acts which they forbid 
 "would be injurious, dangerous, or obnoxious,? 
 not because they would be sinful or even immoral]. 
 And, finally, the Supreme Court of the United 
 States speaks of prohibitory laws, not as a declara- 
 tion, in any wise, regarding the moral character of 
 the drinking or selling of liquor, but as an " effort 
 to guard the community against the evils attend- 
 
38 THE CONTROVERSY OVER BIBLE WINES. 
 
 "ing the excessive use of such liquors," (Mugler vs 
 The State of Kansas and The State of Kansas vs 
 Ziebold and Hagelin.) 
 
 That there is anything in the principal of pro- 
 hibitory law which conflicts with the doctrines of 
 Scripture, as Rev. Mr. Sikes asserts, regarding per- 
 sonal liberty in eating and drinking, seems equally 
 untenable. The law of the Jews forbade the use 
 of pork, and neither the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 nor the words of Christ ever indicated that that 
 law was offensive to divine truth. There seem to 
 many to be reasons equally as good for the Pro- 
 hibition of the liquor traffic in our day as there 
 were for Prohibition of the use of pork in the days 
 of Christ. 
 
 It is difficult to see, therefore, how the contro- 
 versy over Bible wines in use in the days of the 
 prophets, or those in use in the days of Christ 
 can properly affect the question whether the 
 State, in the exercise of its police power, should 
 put an end to the traffic in liquors as a menace to 
 the welfare and safety of society. By so doing it 
 prevents no conduct which Christ ever enjoined 
 upon his followers as a duty. His diet was never 
 ordained as a diet for his disciples. If food which 
 he ate or liquid which he drank is found by the 
 Christian of to-day injurious or distasteful, he 
 rejects it himself, or prohibits it for his family, 
 with no thought of casting any " reflection " on 
 the Saviour. If any article of Christ's diet is 
 found to be to-day, through the weakness of men, 
 
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 39 
 
 or the peculiarity of the climate, or any other 
 reason, a source of wide-spread mischief, can not 
 the State with equal propriety forbid the public 
 traffic therein? 
 
 7. The Physiological Effects of Alcohol. 
 
 But it is not into the realms of philosophy and 
 religion alone that this question leads us. The 
 scientific controversy has been still more exhaust- 
 ive and exhausting. If the importance of a sub- 
 ject, like the importance of a city, is indicated by 
 the number of avenues of approach to it, this 
 subject must be one of the greatest. 
 
 Perhaps the most elaborate argument ever made 
 against Prohibition was th'at delivered in 1867 
 before the Joint Special Committee of the Massa- 
 chusetts Legislature, by ex-Governor John A. 
 Andrew. Mr. Andrew was employed as counsel 
 for those petitioning the Legislature for a repeal 
 of the prohibitory law then on the statute books of 
 that State. Almost his entire address consisted 
 in an assault upon two positions which he as- 
 sumed to be the basis of Prohibition, namely, the 
 " essentially poisonous character of alcoholic bev- 
 " erages," and " the immorality of their use." To 
 disprove these two propositions Mr. Andrew ex- 
 pended all his force, showing the shrewdness of 
 the attorney rather than the wisdom of the phil- 
 osopher. For the supposition that Prohibition 
 rests upon either or both these propositions is one 
 that, to say the least of it, needs to be shown 
 rather than assumed. 
 
40 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 
 
 Nevertheless, the question regarding the physio- 
 logical effects of alcoholic liquors is one that lies 
 very near to the subject in hand and demands at- 
 tention. If alcoholic liquors are of considerable 
 dietetic value valuable, that is to say, not simply 
 for occasional use as a medicine, but as a part of 
 one's regular diet then any law interfering with 
 such use involves consequences that can not be 
 overlooked. The grounds of controversy can be 
 briefly stated, and those points on which there 
 is practical agreement and those on which there 
 is difference of opinion readily seen. 
 
 In 1842, the renowned chemist, Baron Liebig, 
 propounded a theory with regard to food, which 
 has since, with some recent modifications, retained 
 the general acceptance of physiologists of the 
 world. His theory, briefly stated, comprised the 
 division of all foods into two classes, namely, 
 plastic foods, or those which aid in building up 
 the structures of the body; and respiratory foods, 
 or those which aid in producing heat. In all the 
 plastic, or structure-building, foods, it was found 
 that nitrogen was contained as an important ele- 
 ment. The respiratory foods were found to be 
 hydro-carbons, which undergo oxidation in the 
 system, and thus aid in furnishing heat and 
 force. 
 
 In making his classifications, Liebig classified 
 alcohol as a respiratory food (" Animal Chemistry," 
 p. 35) expressly stating that it was not a structure- 
 building food since it had " no element capable of 
 
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Otf ALCOHOL. 41 
 
 " entering into the composition of blood, muscular 
 " fibre, or any part which is the seat of the vital 
 "principle." It was considered a heat-producing 
 food however, since it contains both hydrogen and 
 carbon, and inasmuch as its use is followed by an 
 increase of heat on the surface of the body. 
 
 This classification of alcohol was accepted with 
 but little or no dissent, until thirty years later, 
 when two French scientists, Lallemand and Perrin, 
 assisted by Duroy, published the results of a 
 series of experiments which they had conducted. 
 In these experiments, they claimed to have dis- 
 covered two facts, namely, (1) that alcohol, un- 
 changed by combustion or in any other way, was 
 eliminated from the system in the breath, in the 
 excretions, and by the skin ; and (2) that none of 
 the derivatives, such as aldehyde and acetic acid, 
 which are formed in the combustion of alcohol, 
 were to be found anywhere in the system. Their 
 conclusion, therefore, was that alcohol did not 
 undergo combustion, but was expelled in toto, as 
 an intruder, from the body. 
 
 This conclusion was, in turn, generally accepted, 
 until several years later still, when Dr. Anstie, of 
 England, and, after him, Drs. Thudichum, Schul- 
 inus, and Dupre, announced the result of a series 
 of experiments, covering a number of years. They 
 made careful comparison between the amount of 
 alcohol administered to living animals, and the 
 amount which was to be found afterward in the 
 various excretions of the body. In one case the 
 
42 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 
 
 animal was put to death suddenly two hours after 
 the alcohol was administered, and an analysis was 
 made of every part of the body bone, fiber, hair, 
 and all. (See The Practitioner for July, 1874.) 
 
 The result was that while a portion of the alco- 
 hol was in each case found to be unchanged by 
 combustion, this was but a fraction of the entire 
 quantity administered. The rest, it was con- 
 cluded, underwent change, in some way, within 
 the system, and the inference generally drawn was 
 that, as Liebig had announced, it was changed by 
 combustion, and thus aided in the production of 
 heat. Alcohol was at once restored, then, to the 
 rank of a respiratory food. 
 
 Still another series of experiments threw addi- 
 tional light on the subject. As early as 1850, 
 Dr. N. S. Davis, of Chicago, (afterward Presidenc 
 of the American Medical Association, and, in 
 1887, President of the International Medical Asso- 
 ciation which convened in Washington) had con- 
 ducted a series of careful experiments which 
 appeared to indicate " that the presence of alcohol 
 actually reduced the temperature of the body." * 
 Thirteen years later (1863) Dr. B. W. Richardson, 
 F. R. S., undertook, at the request of the British 
 Association for the Advancement of Science, a 
 series of very elaborate experiments on the effects 
 of nitrate of amyl, which led him into a special 
 study of the properties of alcohol. The result 
 was as stated in his " Ten Cantor Lectures " 
 
 * " Alcoholic Liquors in the Practice of Medicine." p. 3. 
 
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 43 
 
 (p. 116) that he found the administration of alco- 
 hol to a living animal to be followed by an actual 
 reduction, instead of increase, of the products of 
 combustion ; and that in every stage of effect, the 
 general temperature of the animal was lowered 
 instead of raised. His conclusion was that alco- 
 hol does not undergo combustion, since no trace 
 can be found of either the products or the effects 
 of it. In other words, as laconically expressed by 
 Dr. F. R. Lees : " no ashes ; no fire." 
 
 But the point of controversy shifted. It has 
 been known for many years that one of the effects 
 of alcohol is to reduce the amount of waste tissue 
 which is eliminated from the system. All the 
 processes of animal life are attended with the de- 
 struction, as is well known, of cellular tissue, and 
 its elimination from the system. It is agreed that 
 alcohol reduces the amount eliminated, but the 
 way in which it effects this has become now the 
 central point of controversy. The view held by 
 Dr. Wm. B. Carpenter, Dr. N. S. Davis, Dr. Rich- 
 ardson and others is that this effect is accom- 
 plished by " obstructing the removal of the effete 
 " matter of the tissues" (Address of Dr. Carpenter 
 in Tremont Temple, Boston, Dec. 3, 1882.) The 
 view held, on the contrary, by Prof. J. F. W. 
 Johnson, Dr. Hammond, and others is that alco- 
 hol really retards the destruction of the tissue, and 
 in this way effects a saving of material. It is con- 
 ceded, however, that no such retardation of the 
 natural processes pf life is desirable in time of 
 
44 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 
 
 health ; but in time of disease, and especially in 
 certain fevers, it is claimed that alcohol, by retard- 
 ing the oxygenation and the undue wasting of the 
 tissue, acts as a valuable remedial agent. 
 
 Such is a mere outline, touching only the more 
 salient points, of a controversy which has waged 
 more or less intermittently for a generation, and 
 given birth to numerous volumes ; but which has 
 not by any means been settled. It may be said, 
 perhaps, that there is practical agreement on the 
 statement made by Dr. Willard Parker, in his 
 Preface to Dr. Richardson's " Ten Cantor Lec- 
 " tures," namely, that " alcohol has no place in the 
 " healthy system ; " but the value of this agreement 
 is modified by the fact that few people are in a 
 state of perfect health. One other point of prac- 
 tical agreement is this, that alcohol is at times use- 
 ful for medicinal purposes, but at just what times 
 and in just what quantities is something on which 
 there is a wide variance of professional opinion. 
 Some advise it as a daily tonic for many different 
 kinds of ailments, while others claim that it can be 
 dispensed with altogether, the editor of the Bos- 
 ton Journal of Chemistry, Dr. J. R. Nichols, going 
 so far as to claim that there is no use to which 
 alcohol is put for which a less hazardous and 
 equally efficacious substitute has not been found. 
 
 When the doctors differ, who shall decide ? Evi- 
 dently each doctor must decide for himself, in 
 cases of his own. This difference of professional 
 opinion is not peculiar to alcohol ; it extends, to a 
 
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 45 
 
 greater or less extent, to nearly every drug in the 
 Materia Medica. Legislatures can not decide this 
 scientific question any better than the bibical 
 question. They can do nothing else than recog- 
 nize the disagreement, and leave each doctor free 
 to administer this drug, alcohol, as he is free to 
 administer other dangerous drugs, such, for 
 instance, as morphine and laudanum. If legisla- 
 tion does this, it certainly does all that science can 
 possibly ask. 
 
 Does prohibitory legislation give this freedom to 
 physicians? 
 
 There can be no doubt that it is the design of 
 the law so to do, though that design has at times 
 been imperfectly carried out. Every prohibitory 
 law yet passed, or submitted to the people, has 
 made an exception of liquors sold for medicinal 
 purposes, and allowed such sale under what were 
 deemed necessary regulations. These regulations 
 vary in different States. In Maine a town agent is 
 appointed by the Selectmen of any town, or by the 
 Mayor and Board of Aldermen of any city, who 
 receives a compensation fixed by the board appoint- 
 ing him, and whose duty it is to sell the liquor 
 demanded for medicinal, mechanical, arid manu- 
 facturing purposes. But "no such agent shall 
 " have any interest in such liquors or in the profits 
 " of the sale thereof. "-( Chapter 140, Laws of Maine^ 
 1887.) In Massachusetts, town and city agents 
 were similarly appointed under the prohibitory 
 law on the statute-books from 1855 to 1867; but 
 
46 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 
 
 with this difference, that in Maine the liquor is 
 purchased by the appointing board, from a State 
 commissioner, whose salary is fixed, and the agent 
 is supplied by the board ; while in Massachusetts 
 the State commissioner, appointed by the Gov- 
 ernor, supplied the town agents direct throughout 
 the State. A State assayer was also appointed 
 who analyzed the liquor purchased by the Com- 
 missioner and certified to its purity. Both Com- 
 missioner and Assayer were paid, not by fixed 
 salaries, but by certain commissions on all sales. 
 The result was frequent complaint both of the 
 quality of liquor and the price, and the dissatisfac- 
 tion with these provisions led the faculty of the 
 College of Pharmacy in Boston to petition in 1867 
 for a repeal of the law. 
 
 In Iowa and Kansas registered pharmacists 
 alone are allowed to sell liquor, and they can sell 
 only to applicants who present an application 
 signed by a physician and by the applicant, setting 
 forth the kind and amount of liquor desired, and 
 the purpose for which it is required. A record of 
 sales must be kept by the pharmacist and submitted 
 at intervals to the probate judge. Under the law 
 requiring pharmacists to pass an examination 
 before being registered, an efficient safeguard is 
 maintained against the conversion of saloons into 
 pseudo-drugstores, and the continuance, under 
 such a disguise, of the outlawed business. 
 
 What the law, then, designs to accomplish, 
 and, more or less successfully, does accomplish, is 
 
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 47 
 
 not to deprive physicians of the right to adminis- 
 ter alcohol as they see fit, but to place the admin- 
 istering of it wholly in their hands, and to let their 
 judgment determine in each case, not the judg- 
 ment of the drinker himself. If alcohol is, indeed, 
 of special medicinal or dietetic" value, certainly 
 science has nothing to gain from each individual's 
 determining for himself just how much alcohol he 
 ought to have, how often he ought to take it, and 
 in what form, whether as beer, brandy, gin, whis- 
 key, or some other form. Certainly the doctors 
 would be the first to deplore any such loose 
 method in the use of any other powerful drug ; 
 but in the case of alcohol such use is rendered 
 doubly unscientific by its attractions for the appe- 
 tite and its delusions for the mind. Prohibitory 
 law, therefore, does, to the extent to which it suc- 
 ceeds in carrying out its design, reinforce medical 
 science and vindicate, instead of challenging, its 
 rights. 
 
 In the preceding pages, it will have been ob- 
 served, no attempt has been made to state any- 
 thing but the negative side of the question. Atten- 
 tion has been given not so much to the considera- 
 tions urged in behalf of Prohibition, as to the 
 objections urged against it. If the views so far 
 set forth are correct ones, then the a priori objec- 
 tions to Prohibition on legal, philosophical, scrip- 
 tural and scientific grounds, are in reality base- 
 less, and founded in misconception. 
 
48 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL. 
 
 The question still remains, why should this one 
 form of traffic be singled out, and, except within 
 very narrow limits, forbidden by law ? 
 
 Every form of traffic is attended with more or 
 less of evil effects. The traffic in dry-goods and 
 that in jewelry may incite to extravagance. The 
 traffic in staples may lead to speculative excesses. 
 That in railroad stocks may give birth to stock- 
 jobbing iniquities. Yet no one proposes the pro- 
 hibition of these forms of traffic, nor even pro- 
 poses such restrictions as are likely to cripple 
 them seriously. Why then is such a severe restric- 
 tion proposed for the traffic in alcoholic liquors ? 
 An adequate answer can be found only by 
 showing : 
 
 That the evil effects of the drink traffic, as com- 
 pared to its benefits, are of exceptional magnitude and 
 gravity. 
 
 That these evil effects are practically inseparable 
 from the traffic. 
 
 That these evil effects are by no means confined to 
 those who participate in the traffic, either as buyers 
 or sellers of drink, but extend, in a serious degree^ 
 to society in general. 
 
 We come then to a consideration of the effects 
 of the drink traffic, their nature and their extent. 
 For purposes of convenience, these effects may be 
 divided into three classes, as follows : 
 
 1. The moral and physical effects, including the 
 relation of drink to vice, crime, and disease. 
 
 2. The economic effects, including the relation 
 
DRINK AND CRIME. 49 
 
 of drink to industrial conditions, to taxation, and 
 to pauperism. 
 
 3. The political effects of drink and the associ- 
 ations inseparable from it.- 
 
 8. Drink and Crime. 
 
 In considering the evidence concerning the con- 
 nection between drink and crime, one is embar- 
 rassed chiefly by the multitude of testimonies 
 from judges, police officers, keepers of prisons, 
 jails, and reformatory institutions, and the 
 agents of charitable institutions. As a rule, these 
 testimonies have been gratuitously given, called 
 forth either by some unusual experience or by 
 the inquiries of temperance societies. Under such 
 circumstances the objection might be raised that, 
 in the main, these testimonies represent extraor- 
 dinary rather than ordinary experiences. Men 
 with a startling experience on this subject are 
 more likely to call public attention to it than 
 those whose experience has been commonplace. 
 This must be borne in mind frequently in weigh- 
 ing such testimonies, and in reaching general con- 
 clusions. But no such discount need be made in 
 the case of official investigations, when men 
 appear, not of their own volition, but in response 
 to official summons. Unfortunately, such investi- 
 gations have been almost unknown in this coun- 
 try. For many years the attempt has been made 
 to secure from Congress a Commission of Inquiry, 
 but the attempts have been steadily thwarted in 
 the lower House. It is impossible for private 
 4 
 
50 DRINK AND CRIME. 
 
 enterprise to supply the place of such a commis- 
 sion, since there would be no power to summon 
 witnesses and command their compliance. 
 
 In England, however, different treatment has 
 been accorded the subject. Probably the fullest 
 investigation ever made into the results of intem- 
 perance was instituted in 1876, by a Special Com- 
 mittee appointed by the House of Lords. The 
 evidence laid before that committee is published 
 in four large quarto volumes, and covers not only 
 the United Kingdom, but many of the countries 
 in Continental Europe. Most of the testimony 
 taken in detail related to the four large cities of 
 London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. 
 Valuable figures were, however, obtained for all of 
 England, Scotland, and Wales. 
 
 It appears that in the Metropolitan Police District 
 (London and outlying districts) in the year end- 
 ing in 1876, the number of arrests for " drunk and 
 44 incapable " and for <4 drunk and disorderly " was 
 32,328 (Second Rep., App. K.,p. 393,) nearly one- 
 half of these (15,558) being females. All the 
 cases of assault and disorder, numbering 16,713 
 (Third Rep., App. D.. p. 314,) were, with the 
 exception of 227, committed by persons under the 
 influence of drink. Judge Davis, counsel for the 
 Police Commissioners of London, in the course of 
 a long and valuable statement, said : 
 "Speaking of the absolute amount of drunken- 
 ness, of course I do not dispute for a moment 
 (it would be merely repeating what judges say 
 
DRINK AND CRIME. 51 
 
 over and over again) the great connection there 
 is, beyond doubt, between the charges of drunken- 
 ness and all those associated street offenses and 
 real crimes, from simple assaults to assaults with 
 instruments, stabbing, wounding, and so forth, 
 resulting in death, involving charges of man- 
 slaughter, or murder, as the case may be; that 
 is obviously so." (First Rep., p. 123.) 
 In the city of Liverpool, the statistics presented 
 to the Commission by Wm. Hoyle, a statistical spe- 
 cialist, show that out of 62,831 persons arrested in 
 Liverpool in the two years 1871-'73, for crimes of 
 all kinds, two-thirds (41,042) were drunk when 
 arrested, the proportion being about three men to 
 two women. (Third Rep., App. B.,p. 311.) It is 
 not, perhaps, just to claim that every crime com- 
 mitted while under the influence of drink is due to 
 drink as a sole cause ; but with few, if any, excep- 
 tions, it must be regarded as an auxiliary cause. 
 The number of arrests due solely to the cause of 
 drink was only about one-half the above number. 
 In Manchester, during the five years 1868-1872, 
 inclusive, the totdl number of those arrested for 
 all causes and brought before the magistrates, was 
 106,424. Of this number nearly one-third 
 (32,785) were charged with drunkenness, but 
 more than twice that number, or nearly two-thirds 
 (67,802) were drunk when arrested. (Third Rep. 
 App. B., p. 311.) The following is a brief extract 
 from the testimony of the Head Constable of Man- 
 chester ; (First Rep., p. 171.) 
 
52 DRINK AND CRIME. 
 
 Q. 1664. Do you connect many of the crimes of 
 
 violence which come under the notice of the 
 
 police with drunkenness? 
 I connect crimes of violence with drunkenness, 
 
 undoubtedly. 
 Q. 1665. Does that apply to no other forms of 
 
 crime ? 
 Drunkenness leads to loss of work and very often 
 
 to theft, but assault and crimes of violence are 
 
 mostly in connection with drunkenness. 
 
 In the testimony regarding Birmingham, an 
 important fact was developed in the testimony of 
 ex-Mayor Sir Joseph Chamberlain, now the leader 
 of the Liberal Unionists. He stated that on a 
 Saturday evening a short time previous, special 
 watchers, for whose character he vouched, had 
 kept tally of the persons coming out of thirty-five 
 fairly representative public houses in different 
 parts of the city, between the hours of eight and 
 twelve. Their reports showed 15,057 persons 
 (9,351 males, 5,706 females) coming out in the 
 specified time, ot whom 838 were visibly drunk. 
 Yet the police returns showed that there were in 
 the entire city, during the twenty-four hours of 
 the same day, but twenty-nine arrests for drunk- 
 enness. " If to-morrow it were necessary for any 
 " purpose," said Mr. Chamberlain, " I could under- 
 " take to have the statistics of Birmingham made 
 | "ten times as bad as they were before ; just one 
 "turn of the screw would bring in ten times the 
 "number [of arrests for drunkenness]." (Second 
 
BRINK AND CRIME. 53 
 
 Rep. />., 235.) This indicates pretty clearly that 
 whatever inaccuracies there may be in police 
 reports on this point, in England, at least, they 
 certainly do not overstate the truth about drunk- 
 enness. 
 
 It was, in fact, indicated by the testimony of 
 the police officials that the uniform practice is not 
 to arrest every man who is drunk, but only those 
 who are creating a disturbance or who are incap- 
 able of walking safely along the street. So that 
 there is no risk whatever taken in assuming that 
 each case of drunkenness that appears on these 
 records stands for a public disturber or a public 
 nuisance. 
 
 The total number of arrests for drunkenness in 
 England and Wales, in 1875, according to figures 
 obtained by the Committee of the House of Lords, 
 was 203,989 (Final Rep. p. xxxiv), having increased 
 to that number from 88,361 in 1860. This means 
 a proportion of one public offense, due solely to! 
 drink, to each 112 of population. In addition to! 
 these were offenses committed under the influence! 
 of drink, and in which it must be reckoned as an| 
 auxiliary cause, and which, in the cities of Liver- ! 
 pool and Manchester (the only cities from which; 
 figures were furnished for a comparison on thisj 
 point), equalled the number of arrests for which 1 
 drink was the sole cause. 
 
 The statistics furnished the committee for Scot- 
 land give, in twenty-six counties, the number of 
 total arrests for all crimes, and the number of 
 
64 DRIKK AND CRIME. 
 
 those who were drunk when arrested. In these 
 counties, with a combined population of 1,565,803, 
 the total of arrests for three years, 1874-' 75-' 7 6, 
 was 66,346. More than one-half (34,806) were 
 drunk when arrested. These counties, too, were 
 chiefly rural districts, fifteen having a population 
 of less than 50,000 and but four having a popula- 
 tion of over 100,000. In these rural counties, 
 therefore, there was, on an average, one public 
 offense (not counting of course those undetected 
 by the police) each year, due to drink as either 
 the sole or an auxiliary cause, for every 135 of 
 population. How large the number of such 
 offenses is which, either in the cities or rural dis- 
 tricts, are unnoticed by the police, can only be 
 surmised. 
 
 Statistics of this sort for the United States can 
 be obtained in piecemeal only, and at considerable 
 difficulty. One of the minor disadvantages of our 
 republican form of government is that criminal 
 statistics are kept on a sort of "go-as-you-please" 
 plan, so that in certain cities while the figures will 
 be kept with care from year to year, in others the 
 police officials can give the figures for their term 
 of office only. The Prison Reform Association, it 
 is understood, is striving for some improvement 
 in this matter, but as yet the best that can be 
 done apparently is to consider the figures for a 
 number of fairly representative cities scattered 
 throughout the country. 
 
 In " The Political Prohibitionist for 1887," com- 
 
DRINK AND CRIME. 55 
 
 piled by W. W. Spooner and C. De F. Hoxie, a 
 table is published (p. 59) giving the number of 
 arrests in 1886 for all causes, the number of 
 arrests for drunkenness, and the number of arrests 
 for drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and assault 
 combined, for 58 cities of the Union. The figures 
 were obtained partly from the published reports 
 of police officials and partly from direct correspon- 
 dence with them. In these 58 cities (see Appen- 
 dix, note B.), in 17 different States, with a total 
 population (6,316,572) of more than one-tenth 
 the entire population of the country, the total 
 number of arrests for all causes was 304,478, and I 
 of these 191,460 were for drunkenness, drunken- ; 
 ness and disorderly conduct, and assaults. From 
 this a very small reduction should be made for 
 assaults not due to drink. From these figures it 
 appears that in these fifty-eight cities, for every 
 thirty-four of the population, there was one offense 
 against public order and decency, due solely to 
 drink, comprising more than three-fifths of all the 
 offenses for which the police were called on to 
 intervene. 
 
 It seems to be unnecessary, with official evi- 
 dence of this kind in hand, to recall the testi- 
 monies made public in such abundance by judges, 
 police officers, grand juries, and wardens and 
 chaplains of penal institutions. This testimony 
 varies, in the precise proportions of crime esti- 
 mated as due to drink, but it is unanimous on 
 the general fact that a large proportion of the 
 
56 DKINK AND CRIME. 
 
 crimes of violence are due directly to drink, and 
 that many other crimes are due to it as an auxili- 
 ary cause. 
 
 One thing especially should be noted : That 
 these public offenses due to drink are of precisely 
 that class which it is the first duty of Government 
 to guard against, namely, offenses against personal 
 safety and public order. So overmastering does 
 even Herbert Spencer consider the duty of Gov- 
 ernment to furnish protection in these respects, 
 that he contends for a citizen's right, if the State 
 fails in its duty at this point, to release himself 
 from all obligations to aid in its support. The 
 crimes of violence are the very ones which figure 
 most largely in the count against drink, next to 
 the crime of simple drunkenness which is, in 
 itself, a public nuisance and disturbance. 
 
 In its efforts to guard against these crimes, the 
 State deals now chiefly with the drunkard, not 
 with the traffic. Whatever truth there may be in 
 the saying, " You can't make a man sober by act 
 "of Parliament," applies to the present policy of 
 the State, rather than to the policy of Prohibition, 
 which is an effort to guard against these evils by 
 dealing with a traffic, not an appetite. It is some- 
 what surprising to find how often this objection 
 has been advanced for the perpetuation of the 
 present policy of the State, with which it is, 
 rightly considered, in direct opposition, and for 
 the defeat of the very policy which is most in har- 
 mony with it. 
 
DRINK AND DEATH. 57 
 
 9. Drink and Death. 
 
 The relation between drink and mortality, it 
 has seemed impossible to ascertain with anything 
 like scientific accuracy. This is not from the 
 lack of proper effort, but is due to the nature it- 
 self of this relation. Intemperance, in and of 
 itself, is very rarely the immediate cause of death. 
 In drinking alcoholic liquors, stupefaction almost 
 always overtakes the drinker before he has swal- 
 lowed enough liquor to kill. Except in the com- 
 paratively few cases of outright alcoholism, in- 
 temperance in drink is a mediate rather than an 
 immediate cause of death, While the number of 
 deaths due to immediate causes, such as consump- 
 tion, pneumonia, typhoid fever and the like, may 
 be determined with approximate accuracy from 
 vital statistics, it is hardly more possible to tell, 
 with any close approach to accuracy, from ordin- 
 ary sources of information, how many cases of 
 death are due to intemperance in drink, than to 
 tell how many are due to intemperance in eating. 
 We know that bad sanitation and bad ventilation 
 are causes in many instances of death, but they 
 are not immediate causes, and in consequence do 
 not figure on the death-records. It would be ob- 
 viously absurd for one looking through the census 
 reports and finding that none of the deaths enum- 
 erated are attributed to bad sanitary conditions, 
 to conclude that these are in nowise a cause of 
 mortality. It would be equally absurd to adopt 
 
58 DRINK AND DEATH. 
 
 such a course of reasoning in reference to intem- 
 perance. 
 
 Many efforts have been made to ascertain the 
 ratio of mortality due to drink by comparisons 
 between the death-rate of total abstainers and 
 that of drinkers. In a paper read by E. Vivian, 
 M. A., before the British Association for the Ad- 
 vancement of Science, in 1875, there was given 
 the result of statistics kept by the United King- 
 dom and General Provident Institution a life in- 
 surance society. By keeping total abstainers in a 
 class by themselves, it was found that the death- 
 rate among them was considerably less than that 
 among the moderate drinkers. Similar compari- 
 son has been made, with a similar result, between 
 the Ancient Order of United Workingmen, in 
 Manchester, England, and the Order of Good 
 Templars, as also between the Odd Fellows' Asso- 
 ciation and the Good Templars. But all these 
 and similar comparisons, while they furnish 
 ground for a reasonable presumption against 
 drink, are of little worth in furnishing scientific 
 data. 
 
 Even if we knew the exact ratio of mortality 
 among all the total abstainers of the nation, and 
 that among all the drinkers, it would be altogether 
 unwarranted to assume that the difference was 
 due solely to drink. Intemperance is almost in- 
 variably associated with other vices or conditions 
 that operate as auxiliary causes of disease and 
 death. wV^e the same habit of self-restraint which 
 
BRINK AND DEATH. 89 
 
 the total abstainer has cultivated is likely to oper- 
 ate in respect to other indulgences and to prolong 
 his life for reasons aside entirely from the effects 
 of drink. 
 
 An investigation has been made, within the 
 last few years, by the British Medical Association, 
 which, all things considered, is the most scientific 
 and valuable ever made public in regard to this 
 question. Its value is increased by the fact that 
 it was made by a purely scientific body in the in- 
 terests of no theory or trade. 
 
 The inquiry was conducted by a special com- 
 mittee of the association, from May 9, 1885, to 
 December 11, 1886. Each of the contributors to 
 the inquiry, being in each case a member of the 
 association, was requested to take his death-certifi- 
 cate book for the preceding three years, and from 
 the counter-foils of the certificates of males over 
 twenty-five years of age, to fill in the blank in- 
 quiries sent out by the committee. These inquir- 
 ies covered the following particulars among 
 others : Occupation during life, habits in regard to 
 alcoholic drinks, age at death, and the immediate 
 cause or causes of death. Responses were received 
 from 178 members of the association, giving the 
 desired data for 4,234 cases of death. The re- 
 sponses were tabulated by the committee, and a 
 full report of the inquiry published in the British 
 Medical Journal, June 23, 1888. 
 
 The result is a curious one, and forcibly illus- 
 trates what has been said about the fallacy under- 
 
60 DRINK AXD DEATH. 
 
 lying a mere comparison between the mortality 
 rate among abstainers and that among drinkers, 
 but in this case the fallacy tells against the ab- 
 stainers. 
 
 In the returns, the 4234 cases of death were 
 divided, according to habits in respect of drink, 
 into five classes, namely: 
 
 (1) Total abstainers ; (2) The habitually tem- 
 perate drinkers ; (3) The careless drinkers, those 
 who usually drink in moderation, but occasion- 
 ally indulge to excess; (4) The free drinkers, 
 men who are not inebriates, and yet drink con- 
 stantly " more than is good for them ; " (5) The 
 decidedly intemperate inebriates. Table ix shows 
 the average age at death of each class, from which 
 it appears that the average age among total 
 abstainers was even lower than that among the 
 decidedly intemperate. The figures given are as 
 follows : 
 
 Total abstainers average age at death 51.22 yrs. 
 Habitually temperate " " " " 62.13 " 
 Careless drinkers " " " " 59.67 " 
 Free drinkers " " " " 57.59 " 
 
 Decidedly intemperate " " u " 52.03 " 
 
 This would seem to indicate that the longevity 
 of total abstainers is nearly eleven years less than 
 that of the moderate drinkers, and less than that 
 of any other class, less even than that of the 
 drunkards. This is explained by the Committee, 
 in part, by the fact that " the class of total 
 "abstainers is somewhat differently constituted 
 
BRINK AND DEATH. 61 
 
 44 from any of the other classes," inasmuch as the 
 "total abstinence movements which have played so 
 "important a part in this country [England] of 
 44 late years have made many more converts 
 44 among the young than among the middle-aged 
 "or elderly." But there is another fact which 
 serves to invalidate not only the comparison as it 
 pertains to the total abstainers, but, in less degree, 
 as it pertains to all the other classes as well. 
 
 Let a community be conceived in which all 
 males between the ages of 15 and 25 are total 
 abstainers ; all who learn to drink habitually, and 
 in moderation, begin to do so not earlier than the 
 age of 25 ; all who learn to drink freely begin to 
 do so not sooner than the age of 35 ; and all who 
 become habitually intemperate become so not 
 sooner than the age of 45. Now let a comparison 
 be instituted between these different classes, in 
 order to ascertain the average age at death in each 
 class. It is of course apparent that there could 
 not be a single death at an earlier age than 45 
 chronicled among the intemperate, because there 
 were no intemperate persons less than 45 years of 
 age. There would be no deaths at an earlier age 
 than 35 among the free drinkers, none earlier than 
 25 among the temperate drinkers, while every 
 death earlier than 25 would be the death of a 
 total abstainer. It is needless to point out that 
 such a comparison would show a higher average 
 age among the intemperate than among any other 
 class. 
 
62 BRINK AND DEATH. 
 
 Now a condition of things somewhat similar to 
 this supposed condition does actually exist. As 
 the report of the Committee points out, the 
 alcoholic habit tends to increase from youth up to 
 about 45 or 50 years of age. It follows that the 
 average age of the class of total abstainers living 
 at any period would be much lower than that of 
 the drunkards. Both by reason of the fact stated 
 in the report about the number of young men who 
 are converts to the doctrine of total abstinence, and 
 by reason of the presence of home influences and 
 the absence of that strain and stress that drive 
 many to the cup in later years, the comparison 
 is rendered worthless so far as the class of total 
 abstainers is concerned, and is so confessed in the 
 report. " We have not in these returns," says 
 the Committee, " the means of coming to any 
 " conclusion as to the relative duration of life of 
 " total abstainers and habitually temperate 
 " drinkers of alcoholic liquors." 
 
 The same considerations affect, in a less degree, 
 the comparisons between other classes. What- 
 ever inaccuracies there are, however, because of 
 this, tell in favor of the harder drinkers. The 
 difference given (over ten years) between the 
 average age at death of the habitually temperate 
 and the habitually intemperate, tells therefore 
 less than the truth. But on the basis of these 
 figures we may assert broadly, that the report 
 shows that those who become intemperate after 
 the age of twenty-five, lose, on an average, ten 
 
DRINK AND DEATH. 63 
 
 years out of the thirty-five that they otherwise 
 have to live, and that the free drinkers lose five 
 years out of the thirty-five. 
 
 But the report is of greater value in a direction 
 that seems not to have suggested itself at all to 
 the Committee. We have in it a means of deter- 
 mining at last, with some respectable degree of 
 accuracy, the number of deaths due to drink, and, 
 with less accuracy, the number of intemperate 
 drinkers. 
 
 In the 4234 deaths reported, all classes and con- 
 ditions of society were represented, and all sec- 
 tions of the country as well. Now the total 
 number of deaths in England and Wales, in 1886, 
 of males over 25 years of age, was 261,066, out of 
 a population of 27,870,586. The deaths, then, of 
 4234 males over 25 years of age in three years' 
 time, would represent a population of 150,000, 
 which, so far as drink is concerned, may be con- 
 sidered a representative population. Out of these 
 4234 deaths, 1645 were temperate drinkers, 1122 
 were careless drinkers, 653 were free drinkers, 
 and 653 were habitually intemperate. If the 
 same ratio held good for the entire nation, as 
 for this population of 150,000, we should have 
 the following as the number of deaths each year 
 among these four different classes : 
 
 Temperate drinkei-s, males over 25, dying (from all causes) 
 
 each year 101,430 
 
 Careless drinkers, males over 25, dying (from all causes) 
 
 each year 69.111 
 
 Free drinkers, males over 25, dying (from all causes) each 
 
 year 40,263 
 
 Habitually intemperate drinkers, males over 25, dying 
 
 (from 8-U causes) each year ,.. .,,., .,. 40,263 
 
64 DRINK AND DEATH. 
 
 To compute the number of living persons in 
 each class is a more difficult matter, but having 
 the number of deaths in each class and the com- 
 parative mortality, we can, by algebraic formulae 
 (see Appendix, Note C) compute this also. The 
 result will be, for the last two classes of drinkers, 
 as follows : 
 
 Males over 25, In England, belonging to class of " free 
 
 drinkers " 903,917 
 
 Males over 25, in England, belonging to class of "habit- 
 ually intemperate " 759.922 
 
 Total hard drinkers 1,663,839 
 
 That is to say, out of a total population in Eng- 
 land and Wales, in 1886, of 27,870,586, there were 
 1,663,839 males over 25 years of age who were 
 accustomed to excessive drinking, to the point of 
 frequent drunkenness ; and among these there 
 were, from all causes, 80,526 deaths. 
 
 In these figures females are not included. The 
 police statistics indicate that in England one-half 
 as much drunkenness is found among females as 
 among males*. This would give : 
 
 Number of hard drinkers in England (male) 1,633,839 
 
 Number of (female) 831,919 
 
 Total ! 2,465 : 758 
 
 The number of deaths among these, due to all 
 causes, was (reckoning the same ratio among 
 females as among malesf) about 120,000. 
 
 So far we can go with some feeling of approxi- 
 
 * In Liverpool the proportion of arrests for drunkenness is 4 females 
 to 6 males; in London, 7 to 8 ; in Manchester, less than 4 to 9. 
 
 t This ratio should in all probability be higher, as drink Is more 
 destructive to woman. If one attempts to fix on any other ratio bow- 
 ever, it must be largely a matter of guess-work. 
 
DRINK AND DEATH. 65 
 
 mate certainty. The reasons rendering the Com- 
 mittee's report unreliable in other respects do not 
 affect the calculations regarding the total number 
 of deaths of intemperate persons. But when we 
 endeavor to ascertain the proportion of these 
 deaths due to drink itself, we become involved in 
 the inaccuracies already pointed out. If the com- 
 parisons made in the report, between the mortality 
 of temperate and the mortality of intemperate 
 drinkers were strictly accurate (and whatever 
 error there is tells in favor of the intemperate) 
 the ratio of mortality among the hard drinkers 
 is one-fourth greater than among the strictly tem- 
 perate. * This makes the number of deaths due 
 to drink equal to one-fourth the total number of 
 deaths among the hard drinkers. As the total 
 number is 120,789, the number of these due to 
 drink is 30,197. It is certain the number does not 
 fall below this ; it is almost certain that it should 
 fall somewhat above it. Probably it will be safe 
 to say that intemperance kills between 30,000 and 
 35,000 each year in England. 
 
 What is of more interest to us, however, is the 
 number of deaths due to intemperance in Amer- 
 ica. If we take the number in England as a 
 basis, and make allowance for the larger popula- 
 tion in America, and the smaller consumption per 
 
 * The average age of the two classes, careless drinkers and inebriates, 
 is 54.83 years, or 29.83 years after the 25th year, at which point the 
 comparison begins. That of the temperate is 62.13, or 37.13 years 
 after the 25th year, one-fourth longer. 
 
bb DRINK AND DEATH. 
 
 caput, * we shall obtain the following figures for 
 America : 
 
 Number hard drinkers in United States (male and female) 
 
 over 2fi years of age 2,480,000. 
 
 Number of deaths each year (from all causes) among the 
 
 above 120,000 
 
 Number of these deaths due directly to drink 30,000. 
 
 In the number here given of deaths due to 
 intemperance (30,000) the deaths are not included 
 of infants and children, many of which are un- 
 doubtedly due, either by reason of negligence, 
 cruelty, or transmitted defects, to the intemperance 
 of parents. What this number is can only be con- 
 jectured, but there is no doubt it is considera- 
 ble. It is not improbable, indeed, that the most 
 destructive work of intemperance is among this 
 class. Nor is the number included of those who 
 die from intemperance before the age of 25. This 
 however is very inconsiderable. It is not proba- 
 ble that many, even if they form confirmed habits 
 of intemperance at an earlier age, die as the result 
 of those habits before their twenty-fifth year. 
 
 As a result, then, of the investigations of the Brit- 
 ish Medical Association, we may say that out of a 
 population, in the United States, Jany. 1, 1889, of 
 sixty-five millions, there were nearly two and one-half 
 millions of hard drinkers, one hundred and twenty 
 thousand of ivliom die each year, and thirty thousand 
 of whom owe their deaths directly to intemperance. 
 
 * By the report of the Swiss Federal Council, the consumption of al- 
 cohol in Great Britain in 1880 was2.6787 gallonsjjer caput ; in the United 
 states, 1,1329 gallons per caput. 
 
THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 67 
 
 1C. The Economical Evils of Drink. 
 
 The second class of evils to be considered are the 
 economical evils. These are evils that come home 
 to all classes of society, but especially to the wage- 
 earners. In fact, on this class all the economical 
 burdens of society fall most heavily. The wage- 
 earner has, in general, but one thing to sell his 
 labor and that he must sell from day to day. If 
 the price of labor is low, he can not, except in a 
 very limited degree, hold back for a rise ; if the 
 price of labor is high, he can not sell more than 
 when the price was low. If the burdens of taxa- 
 tion on the landlord are increased, he can in part 
 relieve himself by shifting the burdens, or a por- 
 tion of them, on his tenants ; they in turn may 
 shift all or a part, if they are manufacturers or 
 merchants, on their customers, who in their turn 
 may shift a portion upon the help they employ 
 the wage-earner. But the latter is not in a con- 
 dition to shift his share of the burden. He can 
 not dictate terms, as a rule, for he must sell his 
 labor or in a short time starve, and he must buy 
 the necessaries of life or come to the same point. 
 It is not true that all economical burdens, at what- 
 ever point of society applied, rest finally on those 
 at the bottom ; the burdens are always distributed 
 somewhat. But it is true that those burdens rest 
 most heavily on those at the bottom, on the wage- 
 earners. Punch's picture of the soldier who fights 
 for all, the statesman who makes laws for all, 
 the priest who prays for all, and the laborer who 
 
68 THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF PRINK. 
 
 pays for all, is a caricature of the truth, but it is 
 a caricature of the truth. 
 
 The moral evils of the liquor traffic are to a 
 large extent borne by those who are to blame for 
 them by the drunkards themselves. But the 
 economical evils are, for the most part, borne by 
 those who are not to blame for them by those 
 indeed who are least to blame. The drunkard is 
 an economical burden not to himself, nor to the 
 saloon-keeper, but to the sober and the indus- 
 trious. If he fails to work, he is a dead-weight on 
 society. If he works, it is likely to be in a fitful 
 uncertain manner that disorders industry and 
 trade. Especially is this true in those forms of 
 industry in which men work by twos and threes, 
 when the drunkenness of one means the enforced 
 idleness of others. 
 
 It has been urged at times that if all working 
 men were sober the price of sober labor would go 
 down as the supply increased. But such an 
 objection is based on ignorance of the primary 
 truths of social science. In organized society, 
 under normal conditions, all labor properly 
 expended creates more value than it consumes. 
 Were it not for this, industry would prove a curse 
 to a community, and the more industrious a com- 
 munity the more poverty-stricken it would become. 
 On the contrary, in any industrious community 
 wealth accumulates, and as it accumulates the 
 demand for labor increases, for tv^o reasons : 
 namely, first, because by the accumulation of 
 
THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 69 
 
 wealth labor can be applied to better advantage, 
 and so as to produce more valuable results ; and, 
 second, because human nature is so constituted 
 that the more its wants are supplied the more rap- 
 idly they increase. The family that want this 
 year nothing but a log cabin to shelter them, when 
 they get that, begin to want a dozen of things to 
 make it comfortable and attractive beds, chairs, 
 tables, kitchen utensils, fuel, carpets. So in a 
 community of families, the creation of wealth adds 
 steadily to the number of wants and the demand 
 for labor. Civilization has a thousand times as 
 many calls for labor as barbarism. 
 
 If, therefore, in a community of one hundred 
 families, fifty sober men work and fifty drunken 
 men idle, the demand for labor next year will not 
 be as great as it would have been had all one hun- 
 dred labored this year. Each of the sober fifty 
 bears a heavier burden because of the drunken 
 fifty. 
 
 So far, then, from the value of sober labor's being 
 increased by drunkenness, the reverse is true, and 
 not only for the reason just given, but for another 
 reason equally apparent. The drunkard cheapens 
 the labor market in the same way that the dealer 
 who sells books below cost cheapens and demoral- 
 izes the book market. The drunkard is ready to 
 sell, not only his own labor, but that of his wife 
 and children, at less than the real market value. 
 The result is an irruption of woman-labor and 
 child-labor at whatever price employers will pay. 
 
70 THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 
 
 While we are trying to bar out cheap labor from 
 abroad, the saloon is steaclly cheapening labor at 
 home. 
 
 In attempting to reckon, in dollars and cents, the 
 economical loss involved in a harmless luxury, 
 such, for instance, as the use of jewelry, two val- 
 ues must be considered : (1) The intrinsic value of 
 the material used ; (2) the value of the labor ex- 
 pended upon it. The diamond pin, for instance, 
 represents (i) a withdrawal from useful purposes 
 of the diamonds and the gold ; and (2) a with- 
 drawal from useful purposes of all the labor that 
 has been expended upon the pin. In these two 
 values lies the economical loss involved in the pin, 
 no matter whether its cost to the wearer was $100, 
 or 1000. But in the case of harmful luxuries, 
 there is another cost to be considered the cost of 
 damages. 
 
 In reckoning the cost to society of drink, three 
 values must be considered : (1) The value of the 
 materials used, such as grain and hops ; (2) the 
 value of the labor that has been expended in pro- 
 ducing the drink and marketing it ; (3) the 
 value of whatever is destroyed or impaired by the 
 drink, including loss of life, loss of work-power, 
 expense involved in the arrest, trial, and punish- 
 ment for crime, the care of paupers, insane, 
 feeble-minded, and inebriates. 
 
 The first and second of these values can be 
 readily computed. It is, for all practical purposes, 
 equivalent to the drink-bill of the nation, less the 
 
THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 71 
 
 taxes and fees paid out by the traffic into the 
 public treasury. Suppose that $700,000,000 is 
 the sum paid each year for drink in this country. 
 Not a dollar of this sum, it may be, will be lost to 
 the nation ; but the labor and the material used 
 in making and marketing the liquor for which 
 this sum was expended, are lost to the nation. The 
 value of that material and labor is represented by 
 the 1700,000,000 after the taxes and license fees 
 are deducted. 
 
 Suppose, by way of illustration, that this nation 
 withdraws from other forms of industry 500,000, 
 men, and sends them to labor for one year in the 
 construction of the Nicaragua canal. Let $700,- 
 000,000 be the sum paid them for their labor, 
 their transportation, the cost of machinery, arid 
 all their appliances. And suppose, further, that 
 in one way or another every dollar of this sum is 
 by the end of the year returned again to .the nation, 
 either in exchange for provisions purchased, or in 
 bank deposits, or in some other form. The nation 
 would not have lost a single dollar of the $700,- 
 000,000, but it would have lost the equivalent of 
 that mm, in the necessaries, comforts, and luxuries 
 supplied to these men. If the work they have in 
 the meantime performed has created a canal whose 
 value is $700,000,000, the nation has lost noth- 
 ing but interest. If the work has proved value- 
 less, the loss has been $700,000,000 plus the 
 interest. If the work has proved to be positively 
 destructive, the amount of value destroyed must 
 
72 THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 
 
 be added to the 1700,000,000 to ascertain the 
 full extent of the loss. 
 
 It has been estimated that 500,000 men are, in 
 one way or other, engaged in this country in the 
 making and marketing of liquor, and that $700,- 
 000,000 is the sum paid to them by the consumers. 
 Not a dollar of this sum, it may be, is lost ; but 
 the equivalent is lost, and, in addition, all the dam- 
 age entailed is so much of a loss. 
 
 An estimate made in 1886 by Mr. Barrett, at 
 the request of the Bureau of Statistics at Wash- 
 ington, and published in the Report of the Bureau, 
 December, 1886, places the sum paid for liquor by 
 the consumers of the nation at $700,000,000 a 
 year. About the same time, and independently 
 of Mr. Barrett's estimate, Edward Atkinson had 
 figured out about the same result.* Others have 
 estimated the drink-bill at a much higher figure, but 
 none that the writer knows of has placed 
 the figures lower. From this sum should be 
 deducted the aggregate taxes and license fees 
 paid by the traffic, under Federal, State or Muni- 
 cipal laws. The total receipts to the Federal 
 Government during the year ending June 30, 
 1888, (see Report of Internal Revenue Dept. for 
 that year) amounted to $69,306,166.41 on distilled 
 liquors, and $23,324,218.48 on fermented liquors 
 total of $92,630,384.89. From this is to be 
 
 * This estimate of Mr. Barrett's has been assailed by Mr. Thomann, 
 of the U. S. Brewers' Association, but the only point he makes, of seri- 
 ous moment, is that from this sum, $700,000,000, should be deducted the 
 taxes and fees paid into the public treasury by the traffic, in esti- 
 mating the Joss to the nation, 
 
THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 73 
 
 deducted the cost of collecting, which would 
 reduce the sum to about 891,000,000. During the 
 same year there were 176,748 retail and 7,185 
 wholesale dealers according to the report of the 
 Internal Revenue Department. If we take $200 
 as the average license fee, the aggregate fees 
 amounted to 836,800,000.* From this are to be 
 deducted the costs of excise boards or collectors, 
 bringing the sum down certainly as low as $33,- 
 000,000. This makes a total of $124,000,000 to 
 be deducted from $700,000,000, leaving $576,. 
 000,000 as the approximate direct cost each year 
 of the liquor traffic, about $9.00 per caput, or 
 $45.00 per family. 
 
 In addition must be considered the cost of dam- 
 ages inflicted by the traffic, in the way of crimes 
 engendered, work-power lost, etc. The first item 
 under this head will be the loss of 30,000 lives, 
 not counting the infants and children whose deaths 
 are due to intemperance of parents. If each of these 
 lives be reckoned at an industrial value of $1000 
 (not an unusual price paid for an able-bodied slave 
 before the war) we have $30,000,000 as the 
 amount of this item. (Here it may be urged that 
 the death of a drunkard, so far from being an 
 industrial loss, is a positive gain. That is so ; but 
 the fact of his being a drunkard instead of an able- 
 bodied man, is due to drink, and his industrial 
 
 * Since writing this, the writer finds that Mr. Thomann also esti- 
 mates $200 as the average license fee, in his pamphlet : " The Nation's 
 Drink-bill Economically Considered." p. 18. No exact estimate is pos- 
 sible. License fees range from $30 to $1000 in different parts of the 
 country. 
 
74 THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 
 
 value, not as he was just prior to death, but as he 
 would have been but for drink, is the value to be 
 considered.) Another item is the loss of produc- 
 tive power on the part of 2,500,000 intemperate 
 drinkers. A large proportion of these consist of 
 persons who have never learned any trade or pro- 
 fession, and whose labor, being unskilled, is not so 
 much impaired by drink. Another large propor- 
 tion consists of those who would, under any cir- 
 cumstances, either with or without drink, be idlers 
 and vagabonds. On the other hand, the loss of a 
 days' work will in many cases, where men work in 
 twos or threes, as in iron mills and in mines, cause 
 the loss of work on the part of others. Altogether 
 a loss of ten per cent, in the productive capacity 
 of these 2,500,000 hard drinkers, as due to drink, 
 seems to be a very moderate estimate.* Counting 
 three hundred working days to the year at an 
 average of $1.50 per day, one-tenth of the produc- 
 tive capacity of 2,500,000 adults would be $112,- 
 500,000, as another loss due to drink. 
 
 * In the report of the Secretary of the Board of State Charities of 
 Massachusetts for 1868 (Pub. Doc. 17 p. 34), testimony is cited from a 
 large manufacturing house in North Easton, Mass., namely Oliver 
 Ames & Son, to the following effect: 
 
 " We have over 400 men in our works here. We find that the present 
 license law has a very bad effect among our employees. We find on 
 comparing our production in May and June of this year (1868) with 
 
 that of the corresponding months of last year (1867) that in 1867, \vith 
 .375 men. we produced (8) eight per cent, more goods than we did Tn 
 the same months in 1868 with 400 men. We attribute this falling off 
 
 entirely to the repeal of the prohibitory law and the great increase 
 in the use of intoxicating liquors among our men in consequence." 
 In a report made by the Commission appointed, by the Canadian 
 Government in 1874 "to inquire into the working of the prohibitory 
 " liquor law" in the United States, "the following testimony is given 
 (p. 65) from H. Wilson, woollen manufacturer of Southboro, Mass : 
 During 1868, the year the license law was in force, our cost of pro- 
 duction was nearly 10 per cent. more. I employed about 150 men 
 and the drinking by some of them interfered with all, and diminish- 
 ed production, but not cost." 
 
THE ECONOMICAL EVILS OF DRINK. 75 
 
 Another considerable item is the cost of crimes 
 due to drink, the care of the paupers and demented 
 whose condition is due to drink, and the damages 
 by fire, by rail, by boat, and in other ways, due to 
 drunken carelessness or recklessness. By the 
 additions made in the items already reckoned the 
 direct cost $576,000,000, has been increased to 
 $718,500,000. What this last item would amount 
 to it is impossible to tell. But it is reasonably 
 certain it would bring the sum total somewhere 
 between eight and nine hundred millions of dollars 
 as the yearly cost, direct and indirect, of drink.* 
 
 There are many who will assail this estimate as 
 far too low. Other estimates have been made 
 that placed the cost of drink more than twice as 
 high. But this has been done by counting in not 
 only the actual money expended for drink, but, 
 beside, the value of the labor and material used 
 in the various forms of the traffic, thus just 
 doubling the proper figures. Frequently, too, the 
 number of lives lost by drink is placed from 
 60,000 to 100,000, for which the writer is unable 
 to find any but the most flimsy basis. From the 
 nature of the case, no estimate can be exact. The 
 most that can be done is to give a general idea of 
 the magnitude of the evil. The endeavor has been, 
 
 * In a work on "Our Penal Machinery and its Victims." by J. P. 
 Altgeld. of Chicago, in 1884, it was estimated that the total arrests for 
 all causes number in the nation 2,600,000 each year ; that the cost of 
 police is on an average $24.00 to each arrest : that the cost of the 50 
 large penitentiaries, the 2200 jails, and numerous police prisons, is at 
 least $400,000,000, interest on which at flve per cent, would be $20,000,- 
 000. Then there is, in addition, the cost of keeping prisoners over and 
 above the value of the work they perform. 
 
76 POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 
 
 in the preceding pages, not to see how large the 
 figures could be made, but to keep the estimates 
 within those limits in which we have satisfactory 
 data for our guidance. 
 
 1 1. Political Evils Due to the Saloon. 
 
 The third form of evil attendant on the drink 
 traffic, is the political evil. 
 
 The saloon as a factor in politics has, of late 
 years, drawn to it the attention of the nation. 
 Whether it be true that the influence of the 
 saloon-keeper is, as Judge Rhone thinks, "im- 
 " mensely overated," is not the question of greatest 
 importance. The influence of the saloon, rather 
 than the influence of the saloon-keeper, is the 
 cause of grave concern. The influence of the 
 saloons of the land is no more to be measured by 
 that of the men who conduct them than the influ- 
 ence of the common schools of the land is to be 
 measured by that of the teachers employed in 
 them. The bar rather than the barkeeper is the 
 source of degradation, and if every saloon-keeper 
 emigrated or died to-morrow, and the saloons con- 
 tinued, there would be but a slight and temporary 
 change for the better. It is true the liquor-deal- 
 ers, through the organizations local, state, and 
 national which they have formed, and the 
 immense capital which they have accumulated, 
 have developed political power dangerous to con- 
 template. But the chief source of that power is 
 not, after all, -in their organizations, nor in their 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 77 
 
 Capital, nor in their personal ability ; but it lies in 
 the saloons which they control, and through which 
 they operate to such tremendous advantage. 
 Whatever purchasable vote there may be, is almost 
 sure to be within reach of the saloon-keeper. If 
 each saloon of New York State can reach and con- 
 trol ten votes on an average, the united strength 
 of the 35,000 saloons is one-fourth of the vote of 
 the State. 
 
 Nor is this one of the mere might-be evils which 
 sometimes give needless nightmares to reformers. 
 The power is one which is exercised already, not 
 indeed as a unified force, but sufficiently to deter- 
 mine important elections. In the last election 
 (1888) the Democratic candidate for President, 
 with the Independent vote largely in his favor, 
 polled in New York State 635,757 votes. The 
 vote polled the same day for the Democratic 
 candidate for Governor, though the Independent 
 vote was almost solidly cast against him, was 
 650,464. The former was defeated by 13,000 
 plurality, the latter elected by 19,000 plurality. 
 The difference, it is generally conceded, was 
 brought about by the liquor dealers, who be- 
 lieved the re-election of the Democratic candi- 
 date for Governor was important for their interests. 
 
 If, as is probable, 15,000 of the votes cast 
 for the Democratic candidate for President were 
 cast against the Democratic candidate for Gov- 
 ernor, then there must have been at least 30,000 
 who cast their votes for the Republican candidate 
 
78 POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 
 
 for President, who were swung over the same 
 day to the support of the Democratic candidate 
 for Governor. A study of the returns shows that 
 this transference took place chiefly in the cities, 
 confirming the general opinion that it was effected 
 by the liquor dealers. A similar swing in the 
 other direction was witnessed in 1883, when the 
 Republican candidate for Secretary of State in 
 New York was regarded by the liquor dealers with 
 special favor, and the Democratic candidate was 
 regarded with special disfavor. The former was 
 elected by 18,583 plurality, while every other 
 candidate on the same ticket was defeated by plu- 
 ralities ranging from 13,630 to 17,568. 
 
 These are instances of what has appeared in the 
 more general elections. But it is in the less con- 
 spicuous elections that the saloon plays the most 
 important part. In the elections for the Legisla- 
 ture, county and municipal offices, the saloon is, in 
 the centres of population, too often the dominant 
 force. It is here that it plays its most dangerous 
 because least conspicuous role. The politicians 
 whom it breeds are, as a rule, men whose ambi- 
 tions are directed to local offices, and whose only 
 interest in the general elections is in the occasion 
 they present for " deals." The notorious Board of 
 44 Boodle " Aldermen in power in New York city 
 in 1884, contained twelve liquor dealers, or ex- 
 dealers, out of a total membership of twenty-four, 
 and the Board that succeeded to power was simi- 
 larly constituted. With the right vested, as it 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALuON. 79 
 
 was at that time, in the Board to confirm or reject 
 all the Mayor's appointments to office, it will be 
 seen what such power meant to the city of New 
 York. Out of 1002 primaries and nominating 
 conventions held in New York in 1884 by the two 
 leading parties, 633 were held in saloons, and 96 
 in rooms adjacent to saloons. (New York City 
 and its Masters, p. 38.) Iii 1887 the .County 
 Committee of one of the two leading parties in 
 New York, and that the one considered less amen- 
 able to saloon influences, contained fifty-three 
 liquor dealers, or ex-dealers, the ratio of liquor 
 dealers being larger than that of any other pro- 
 fession or trade. Similar instances might be given 
 .showing much the same condition of things 
 in Brooklyn, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. 
 Louis, Omaha, Baltimore, San Francisco, and 
 other large cities of the Union, in all of which it 
 is true, to greater or less degree, that, as Mr. Hal- 
 stead said of Cincinnati, " every saloon is a politi- 
 " cal, club house." " Long ago," said George 
 Frederic Parsons in The Atlantic Monthly, two 
 years since, " the saloon abolished party politics in 
 " our largest cities. To-day, in ever}^ such city, 
 " the local government is vested in neither party, 
 " but is in the hands of the saloon itself. Nom- 
 " inally, the government may be Democratic or 
 " Republican. Actually, it is in commission by a 
 " band of venal politicians, who have no convic- 
 " tions or principles, who trade and swap oppor- 
 " tunities for plunder with one another, who act 
 
80 POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 
 
 " as agents few the so-called party leaders, but who 
 " acknowledge allegiance only to the saloon." 
 
 As a result of this political prominence of the 
 saloon, is seen the municipal misrule which is gen- 
 erally recognized by statesmen at home and 
 abroad, as the most glaring defect of American 
 Government, and the most ominous danger to its 
 perpetuity. " There is no denying," says Prof. 
 Bryce in his new and valuable work " The Amer- 
 ican Commonwealth," " that the government of 
 " cities is the one conspicuous failure of the United 
 " States." Yet municipal government has come to 
 be the most important part of American Govern- 
 ment. The massing of our population in the 
 large cities has been going on in steadily increas- 
 ing proportions, until now more than one-fifth of 
 the population of the United States is contained 
 in the fifty largest cities. Not only the balance 
 of power but the power itself, politically and 
 financially, has been fast coming to these great 
 nerve-centres of the nation, where social customs 
 are set, public sentiment moulded, and the lines of 
 industrial and commercial activity determined. 
 Rottenness here is rottenness at the core. De 
 Tocqueville forty years ago pointed out our dan- 
 ger through municipal misrule ; Beaconsfield and 
 Macaulay have emphasized it since. It is in the 
 large cities that the saloon is strongest and most 
 defiant. It is here that its mastery in politics is 
 most complete and most offensive : and it is here 
 also that the Church and the influences which 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 81 
 
 make for morality are relatively the weakest. The 
 sober truth is, the saloon has seized upon the 
 strategic points of American civilization the 
 cities and, in so far as local government is con- 
 cerned, it has obtained a grip that only the stern- 
 est measures can break. 
 
 There have been, during the last half-century, 
 several outbreaks of public sentiment awakened 
 by the rapid increase of our foreign population. 
 Unfortunately, these outbreaks have seemed to be 
 directed against persons rather than against ideas 
 or influences. The cry has been, " America for 
 Americans," rather than, America for American 
 ideas and institutions. The distinction is one 
 with a difference. There are legions of foreign- 
 born citizens who are to-day Americans in all that 
 that word implies. In many cases their love for 
 this country and its institutions is more intelligent 
 and more appreciative from the very fact of their 
 birth under other skies. The danger lies not with 
 the foreign-born citizen so much as with the for- 
 eign-born ideas, customs, and standards to which 
 too often he persists in clinging. 
 
 It is a duty that is owed not to the native-born 
 American alone, but equally to the foreign-born, 
 that those influences which have hitherto made 
 this land an asylum for all peoples should con- 
 tinue to dominate in the future development of 
 the nation. " We are placed at the head of rep- 
 " resentative and popular governments," said 
 Webster in his Bunker Hill oration, "We shall 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON". 
 
 " be recreant to the duty of that headship if we 
 " permit the fundamental conditions of national 
 "repose, of the security of personal rights, of good 
 " laws, and of just administration to be imperilled 
 " by the ignorant, lawless, idle, and dangerous 
 44 overflow of all other countries. We are the 
 "occupants and guardians of this countay, 
 " arid with a kindly heart and hospitable hand 
 "toward all the world, we must prescribe the 
 " conditions upon which the world shall come 
 "here." 
 
 Closing the ports, however, on those whose only 
 offence has been birth in a foreign land, so far 
 from being a blow struck for American ideas, is a 
 direct blow at one of the most cherished of those 
 ideas, and one which has done much to keep the 
 patriotic pride of the nation alive. Such a meas- 
 ure could be justified by the direst necessity alone, 
 and after all other measures had proved futile. 
 No reference is intended in this to the laws 
 against imported paupers and criminals, nor to the 
 intent of the law against contract labor. It is not 
 the man that is brought here; but the one who of 
 his own will, aspiring for better things for himself 
 or his children, with thrift enough to pay for his 
 passage and courage enough to brave the hard- 
 ships of the new life to withdraw from such an 
 one our welcome would mark a grave departure 
 from the spirit of American history. There has 
 been, of course, a great deal of spread-eagle ora- 
 tory that counted for very little about our coun- 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 83 
 
 try as the asylum for the oppressed of all lands. 
 But below all the buncombe and braggadocio, 
 there has been a deep-seated pride in the fact and 
 a glorying in it that has stimulated the patriotism 
 of the nation to a wonderful degree. 
 
 And yet, while appreciating this to the full, one 
 must not fail to recognize the perils that have 
 come with the foreignizing tendencies of the last 
 two decades. The advance of science has in the 
 last forty years annihilated ten out of every twelve 
 miles that separate us from the old world. It is 
 as if our continent had been taken up in the hand 
 of Omnipotence and placed Avithin one-sixth of its 
 former distance from the nations of Europe. The 
 change has brought to us wonderful development 
 and marvelous wealth, but it has brought its dan- 
 gers as well. The number of immigrants reach- 
 ing our ports in the last twenty years has exceeded 
 the sum total of immigration during the entire 
 previous history of our nation. One thousand 
 and five hundred a day has been about the aver- 
 age for the last ten years, and the massing of these 
 in the large cities has greatly complicated the 
 problems arising. " When an Irishman, a Ger- 
 " man, a Frenchman, lands at Castle Garden," 
 says Sam Small, " then and there an Irishman, a 
 " German, or a Frenchman ought to die, and an 
 " American be born." But unfortunately such a 
 transformation is becoming more and more rare. 
 We have the German vote and the Irish vote. In 
 each of the large cities there is the German quar- 
 
84 POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 
 
 ter, the Irish quarter, the Italian quarter. 
 Natural enough, of course, but dangerous 
 enough too. It is perhaps not too much to say 
 that the central question of our social and politi- 
 cal future for years to come will be this : 
 
 SHALL AMERICA AMERICANIZE THIS VAST FOR- 
 EIGN ELEMENT, OR BE FOREIGNIZED BY IT? 
 
 The bearing which the saloon has upon this 
 question is immediate and important, and more so 
 in a political than any other sense. Itself an im- 
 ported institution, the saloon has become the ful- 
 crum by means of which the worst of the foreign- 
 izing tendencies work their changes on law and 
 Government. It is linked in an alliance with the 
 house of prostitution, which is already seeking 
 and finding legalization in the form of license laws. 
 More than any other one factor, the saloon has 
 broken down the American Sabbath and ushered 
 in the Continental Sunday, disdaining in most 
 cases even to change the law, but accomplishing 
 its work in spite of the law. * It is in the saloon 
 that Anarchism finds a rendezvous and an inspira- 
 tion, and the red flag has never floated to the 
 American breeze except from an American saloon. 
 
 But above and beyond all, the saloon has organ- 
 ized and in a large part created a purchasable vote 
 whose proportions have alarmed even American 
 
 * Out of 3441 applicants to the License Court of Philadelphia, in 1838, 
 for saloon licenses, 3000 were reported by the police as violators of the 
 Sunday law. 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON. 85 
 
 optimism. If " every saloon is a political club- 
 " house," the education given in it is an education 
 in political corruption. As a rule, every habitual 
 drunkard added to society is an addition of one to 
 the purchasable vote. Said John B. Finch in his 
 impassioned way : 
 
 " There stands a workman ; he does not drink ; 
 he has money in his pocket ; he has a good job ; 
 his brain is clear ; his wife and family are happy. 
 For the first time he goes to a drinking place 
 and drinks. During four or five years he goes 
 down and down, and by and by he gets reck- 
 less, loses his business, and his family have to 
 beg. He is an outcast on the street. On an 
 election morning this man stands on a street 
 corner, ragged, dirty, sick ; craving for something 
 to drink, such a craving for the poison that he 
 would sell his soul for a drink of liquor. The 
 only thing that man possesses which will bring 
 money is his vote. Do you suppose that man, 
 with morals gone, reputation gone, starving, 
 ragged, and hungry, will vote like an American 
 citizen, according to his convictions, if he can 
 get money for voting otherwise ? " ( The People 
 vs The Liquor Traffic, p. 58.) 
 It is in the saloon, and under its corrupting influ- 
 ences, that the immigrant, as a rule, learns his first 
 lessons in American politics. Within a radius of 
 one-half mile from Castle Garden four hundred 
 saloons are located, and up to a very recent date 
 there was not in that distance a lodging house or 
 
86 POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOON". 
 
 restaurant without a bar attached. Who is to 
 blame if political corruption, as a lucrative busi- 
 ness and a speedy channel to official power, is 
 learned by the immigrant too well ever to be un- 
 learned? In the city of Philadelphia, in 1888, 
 the License Court began a system of inquiry into 
 the nationality- of the applicants for license. It 
 was found that nine out of ten were of foreign 
 birth, and a large percentage were still urmatural- 
 ized. A similar condition of things doubtless ex- 
 ists in other large cities, and in some of them, 
 probably, the proportion of foreign-born saloon- 
 keepers is larger still. George Frederic Parsons, 
 in the article in " The Atlantic Monthly " already 
 quoted, wrftes: 
 
 4> The foreigner who lands in this country obtains 
 his first ideas of its governmental system from 
 the saloon. There he is introduced to the- low- 
 est intrigues of factional conflict. There he is 
 taught that the chief end and aim of politics is 
 to make as much as possible for the 4 workers'. 
 There he is enlisted into one or other of the 
 great organizations which have reduced party 
 politics to periodical battles for plunder, to 
 contests for the opportunity to misgovern. 
 There he learns that honor and principle are 
 simply ' molasses to catch flies,' as a notorious 
 politician once expressed it. There he is made 
 to understand that he is not expected to think 
 for himself, but that he must obey implicitly the 
 party mandates, reverence the saloon-keepers of 
 
POLITICAL EVILS DUE TO THE SALOOX. 87 
 
 his ward, submit himself humbly to his ' boss,' 
 and on election day be thankful that he can sell 
 his vote for a couple of dollars or a debauch on 
 bad whiskey. This is no fanciful picture. 
 There is no considerable city in the United 
 States in whicli purchased votes are not cast by 
 the thousand at every important election, and 
 these votes are almost invariably bought and 
 paid for in the saloon." 
 
 It is, after all, in this aspect of the saloon, as a 
 creator and a rallying point of corrupt forces in 
 politics, that we have most to fear. It is this that 
 makes the saloon a barrier, to every reform that 
 must appeal to the integrity and intelligence of 
 the citizen for success. It is this above all that 
 makes the drink question one that lies, as Cobden 
 said, " at the foundation of all social and political 
 "reform." 
 
 Ballot Reform bills may prove a check to the 
 spread of this corruption in one direction ; but 
 Ballot Reform itself must now come, it seems, if it 
 comes at all, modified at the dictates of saloon- 
 bred politicians. But should it accomplish all it 
 promises, it will reach but one phase of an all- 
 pervading disease. It is not corruption at the 
 ballot-box alone, but corruption in the primaries 
 and nominating conventions, and corruption in 
 office as well. In a magazine article a few years 
 ago Mr. Theodore Roosevelt told of his experience 
 in Albany as a legislator. When seeking to secure 
 the passage of certain reform bills, he and his coj- 
 
88 THE PLEASURES OF DRINK. 
 
 leagues investigated with care the character of 
 'their fellow members of the legislature, with a 
 view to finding out how many they could depend 
 on to resist efforts at bribery. The conclusion they 
 reached was that fully sixty per cent, of the legis- 
 lators could not be relied on. Within the last 
 few months, the President of the United States in 
 his inaugural address, and a majority of the Gov- 
 ernors, in their messages to the legislatures, have 
 called attention to the extent of political corrup- 
 tion as one of the most serious and imminent 
 dangers to the Commonwealth. It is fast becom- 
 ing literally true that, as Wendell Phillips once 
 said : " Universal suffrage is a sham while rum 
 " rules our great cities." 
 
 12. The Pleasures of Drink. 
 
 Such are the evils, in outline, that are attend- 
 ant upon the saloon. They are public evils, and 
 justify whatever public action seems to be neces- 
 sary for their prevention. That they are insepar- 
 able from the traffic, uniform experience indicates. 
 What are the benefits which the traffic confers as 
 an offset to these evils? In considering these, the 
 plea made for liquor as a medicinal agent is, of 
 course, not pertinent, since it is not proposed to 
 abridge the manufacture or sale of liquor foi 
 medicinal, mechanical, or chemical purposes. 
 
 The plea is sometimes advanced that the traffic 
 gives employment to many thousands of men and 
 support to their families. This is true ; but unless 
 
THE PLEASURES OF DRINK. ' 89 
 
 lor that support some adequate return is made 
 society, then their support is at the expense of 
 others, and the larger the number employed in 
 the traffic the greater becomes the economical evil. 
 It is, moreover, a demonstrable fact that whereas 
 one million dollars of capital invested in the manu 
 facture of liquor gives employment to 285 persons, 
 the same ^amount invested in one of the other ten 
 leading industries of the nation gives employment, 
 on an average, to 876 persons.* If the money, 
 therefore, now invested in the manufacture of 
 liquor were invested in other forms of industry it 
 would give employment to three times as many 
 men and pay two and one-half times as much as 
 now in wages. 
 
 A similar plea to the above is often heard, to 
 the effect that the liquor traffic furnishes to the 
 farmer a valuable market for his grai^i. This plea 
 is, when analyzed, equally as unsubstantial as the 
 preceding one. The amount of corn, rye, and 
 l>arley used in the manufacture of liquor is pro- 
 bably about one bushel out of every twenty raised 
 by the farmer. But it must be evident that a very 
 considerable proportion of the money now paid 
 into the saloons would, but for drink, be expended 
 in provisions, clothing, and similar necessities and 
 comforts of life. For every dollar now expended 
 for drink, the farmer receives about five cents for 
 the grain furnished by him. For the same amount 
 
 *This estimate is based 011 the figures given in the Census Report 
 for 1880. 
 
90 THE PLEASURES OF DRINK. 
 
 of money expended in food-products, such for 
 instance as bread, the farmer receives about seven- 
 teen cents out of every dollar. 
 
 After all is said, there remains but one plea that 
 can be made for the traffic on the basis of any 
 benefits it confers, and that is a plea for the social 
 and physical pleasures derived from drink. Con- 
 sideration is called to the fact that for every person 
 who drinks to his ruin, there are many who derive 
 a keen delight from drink without demonstrably 
 impairing their faculties or rendering themselves 
 burdens upon society. 
 
 It is not a slight thing to curtail the pleasures 
 of mankind. In the divine plan, pleasures and 
 pains seem to be the great forces, acting in oppo- 
 site directions, which are bringing the race into 
 conformity with the laws of nature and the pur- 
 poses of the Creator. In the pleasure of posses- 
 sion as well as in the pains of poverty, are found 
 the incentives to thrift and endeavor. The pleas- 
 ures of health as well as the pains of disease are 
 incentives to self-control and physical activity. 
 The destruction of a legitimate pleasure is a posi- 
 tive moral loss to the world, and no nature can be 
 anything but dwarfed in which the faculty of 
 enjoyment has not been developed. 
 
 Were the question (as it is so often conceived 
 to be) simply that of curtailing the enjoyments of 
 the many to save a few from their self-inflicted 
 pains, the objections to such a course would be 
 numerous and strong. But the question is 
 
THE PLEASURES OF DRINK. 91 
 
 radically different from that. Not to release the 
 slave of appetite from the degradation which he 
 has wrought upon himself, but to protect the Com- 
 monwealth from the burdens laid upon it by drink, 
 and to protect the innocent and helpless victims 
 of others' appetites, who are unable to protect 
 themselves, is the prime purpose of prohibitory 
 law. 
 
 For above and beyond all the evils that can be 
 shown by statistics or figured into dollars and 
 cents, are the heartbreaks of those who are linked 
 to the drunkard by bonds indissoluble. It has 
 been said that "there is no argument in a woman's 
 " cry." Be that as it may, it is more than an argu- 
 ment : it is an appeal. A serious thing it may be 
 to curtail the pleasures of mankind ; but is it not 
 far more serious to continue pleasures that can be 
 had only by the continuance of conditions that are 
 certain, ever and everywhere, to entail upon count- 
 less thousands woes that are immeasurable ? The 
 issue is not the wine-cup about which poets have 
 snug, but the saloon, whose horrors only a Dante 
 could fittingly describe. 
 
 If the preceding calculations are correct, the 
 number of intemperate drinkers in our nation, 
 and those who drink hard and constantly, is about 
 2,500,000. These represent, on the usual average, 
 10,000,000 others who are bound to them by 
 family ties and to greater or less extent dependent 
 upon them for support and protection. If, then, one- 
 the entire adult population of the nation are 
 
92 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 temperate drinkers, there is still, for every one who 
 safely tastes the pleasures of drink, one to whom 
 drink has brought sorrow, shame, and suffering 
 that beggar description. Is such a pleasure worth 
 a price so great? 
 
 13. Recapitulation. 
 
 In the preceding pages, the endeavor has been 
 to set forth the following points : 
 
 1. That Prohibition is an established legal right 
 of the Commonwealth. 
 
 2. That it is in harmony with those views of gov- 
 ernment on which social philosophers of all schools 
 are agreed. 
 
 3. That its purpose is not to reform the moral 
 conduct of the individual, but to relieve society 
 of the burdens and dangers imposed upon it by 
 drink. 
 
 4. That it interferes with the performance of 
 no religious duty and does not involve a decision on 
 the biblical questions that arise. 
 
 5. That instead of depriving the physician of 
 full freedom in administering liquor as a medi- 
 cine, it vindicates his right alone to decide when 
 its medicinal use is demanded. 
 
 6. That the traffic in drink is attended by evils 
 of exceptional gravity which are inseparable from 
 it, and which are in no wise limited to those who 
 participate in the traffic. That these evils are of 
 three kinds : (1) Moral evils, including two-thirds 
 of the criminal offenses, and the loss of thirty 
 thousand lives each year; (2) economical evils, 
 
RECAPITULATION 1 . 98 
 
 aggregating a cost of between eight and nine hun- 
 dred millions of dollars each year ; (3) political 
 evils that have a vital bearing on the most import- 
 ant political questions of the day. 
 
 7. That the pleasures conferred by the traffic 
 are in striking disproportion to the evils it inflicts. 
 
 There still remain to be considered the ques- 
 tions, Does Prohibition work well in practice, and, 
 Is a new party necessary or advisable for securing 
 it? 
 
PART II -. THE POLICY. 
 
 Is THE POLICY OF PROHIBITION ONE WHICH, IN 
 ACTUAL OPERATION, ACCOMPLISHES THE DE- 
 SIKED ENDS ? 
 
 "The man who writes, speaks, or meditates without being well- 
 stocked with facts, as landmarks to the understanding, is like a mar- 
 iner who sails along a treacherous coast without a pilot, or one who 
 adventures in the wide ocean without a rudder or compass." Lord 
 Bacon.'"' 
 
 " ARGUMENT however admirable, and logic how- 
 " ever conclusive," wrote George William Curtis 
 recently in dealing with another subject, " do not 
 " avail with the English-speaking race like actual 
 " experiment." Concerning any proposed public 
 policy, the question asked by the social philoso- 
 pher is, Is the principle embodied in the policy a 
 correct one ? The question asked by the poli- 
 tician is, Will the policy work ? The statesman, 
 with an eye both to ultimate tendencies and 
 immediate results, is forced to ask both questions. 
 Not until social science shall have become one of 
 the exact sciences, can a nation afford to take 
 more than a step at a time in untried paths, how- 
 ever many the attractions they present. Philosophy, 
 after all, is but the deduction of general laws 
 from the experiences of the past ; and in social 
 94 
 
THE POLICY. 95 
 
 philosophy especially, the advent of a new fact or 
 a new force, or a set of new experiences, may at 
 times act upon the best of theories much as the 
 advent of a new planet in our solar system might 
 act upon the calculations of our astronomers. 
 
 Fortunately for the consideration of the subject 
 of this volume, the experiments with prohibitory 
 legislation have already lasted for more than a 
 generation and have been tried under many differ- 
 ent conditions. 
 
 There are at present five States of the Union 
 namely, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Kansas, 
 and Iowa under prohibitory law which applies, 
 in each case, to the entire State. In New Hamp- 
 shire there is Prohibition of the sale but not of the 
 manufacture of liquor. In addition to these 
 States, prohibitory law applying to the entire State 
 has been on the statute books of three other States, 
 namely, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Michi- 
 gan. In addition still to these, portions more or 
 less considerable of many other States are now 
 under prohibitory law secured by county or muni- 
 cipal action, those States in which these portions 
 are most considerable being : Georgia, Mississippi, 
 Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South 
 Carolina, Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Connecti- 
 cut. In nearly all the States, however, there is, as * 
 in New York, Illinois, Ohio, arid Nebraska, local 
 Prohibition to some extent. 
 
 In two of the five States now under the opera- 
 tion of State Projribiton, the jaw has had an 
 
96 THE POLICY. 
 
 almost continuous existence for more than thirty 
 years namely, Maine and Vermont. In Rhode 
 Island the present law was adopted in May 1886, 
 but prior to that time, namely, from 1853 to 1862, 
 and again from 1874 to 1875, Rhode Island was 
 under statutory Prohibition. In Kansas and Iowa 
 the law has been in existence respectively eight 
 and four years. In three of the five States, 
 namely, Maine, Kansas and Rhode Island, the law 
 has been imbedded in the State Constitution. 
 
 In addition, a number of other States, during 
 the period from 1851-1855, adopted prohibitory 
 laws, through the action of the Legislature, which 
 were either declared unconstitutional by reason of 
 certain clauses confiscating liquor in the market 
 prior to the passage of the law, or which were 
 repealed in a very short time before the machinery 
 for their execution could be constructed or fairly 
 tried. As interest centres chiefly in the five 
 States now under the operation of the law, the 
 examination into the results in those States for- 
 merly under prohibitory laws, which have since 
 been repealed, will not be made in elaborate 
 detail. These States number four, namely, Michi- 
 gan, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachu- 
 setts. 
 
 In three of these four States, namely, Michigan, 
 Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the law was 
 adopted in the same year 1855. In the other 
 State, Connecticut, the law was adopted the year 
 previous. One highly important consideration Dre- 
 
THE POLICY. 97 
 
 sents itself at once, from these dates of enactment, 
 and that is, the political condition of the country 
 at this time or immediately thereafter. The ques- 
 tion of African slavery was rapidly becoming the 
 all-absorbing question of the nation. The Repub- 
 lican party had just had its birth (1854), on the 
 issue of the non-extension of slavery, polling in its 
 first national campaign, two years later (so intense 
 had the feeling already become) one and one-third 
 millions of votes. The Whig party was being 
 broken in pieces, in the South by the Know-Noth- 
 ings, in the North by the Republicans. In Con- 
 gress a struggle was going on that absorbed the 
 attention of the Nation as never before or since. 
 The very atmosphere grew electric with excite- 
 ment and nowhere more so than in the three New 
 England States we are considering. The exist- 
 ence of the Union was hanging in the balance. 
 Civil war followed soon, in 1861, lasting until 
 1866. 
 
 In the second year of the war, the prohibitory 
 law was repealed in Rhode Island, and superseded 
 by a license law, the need for increased revenue 
 being doubtless at that time an important factor 
 in bringing about the change. The law was re-en- 
 acted in 1874, but its trial then was limited to a 
 single year. 
 
 In Massachusetts the prohibitory provisions of 
 
 the law were repealed the second year after the 
 
 Avar closed (1867) ; two years later (early in 1870) 
 
 these provisions were re-enacted, but in th same 
 
 7 
 
98 THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 year malt liquor was exempted from the prohibi- 
 tion. Three years later, this exemption was with- 
 drawn, and two years later still (1875) the entire 
 law was superseded by a license law. 
 
 In Michigan, the law remained on the statute- 
 books until 1875, but prior to that, a decision had 
 been made by the State Supreme Court, giving to 
 municipalities the right, under the law, of taxing 
 the traffic, which effectually disposed of what 
 force the law had possessed. 
 
 In Connecticut, the law continued in force until 
 1872, when it was superseded by license and local 
 option. 
 
 It becomes evident, then, that in each of these 
 tour States, for at least ten years immediately suc- 
 ceeding the enactment of Prohibition, the excite- 1 
 ment leading up to and during the war rendered 
 the conditions unfavorable to a concentration of 
 either attention or energy upon its enforcement. 
 Even in local elections the issue of slavery had 
 become dominant and dividing, and, as a matter of 
 fact, the enforcement of Prohibition seems during 
 this period to have been a matter of very little 
 political moment. 
 
 1 . The Inquiry Instituted by the Canadian Par- 
 liament. 
 
 It is fortunate for the investigation at this point, 
 that in 1874 the Governor-General of Canada, at 
 the solicitation of the Canadian Parliament, 
 appointed a Spciai Commission " tc inquire into 
 
THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 99 
 
 " the working of the prohibitory liquor laws." 
 This commission consisted of two men, namely, 
 F. Davis, a lawyer, and Rev. J. M. Manning. 
 They seem to have investigated with much pains- 
 taking the effects of the law in Maine and Massa- 
 chusetts, and, less thoroughly, the effects in Ver- 
 mont, Michigan, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. 
 The results of their investigation were embodied 
 in a report to the Secretary of State of Canada, 
 printed in 1875. Taking up their report as it 
 pertains to the four States now under considera- 
 tion, namely, Michigan, Rhode Island, Connecti- 
 cut, and Massachusetts, we find the condition of 
 things in each of those States to have been as 
 follows : 
 
 Michigan. It seems to have been generally ad- 
 mitted that the law in this State was not enforced 
 to any appreciable extent, except in some of the 
 rural communities. " In all the large cities and 
 " towns," Governor Bagley wrote to the Commis- 
 sion, "the law was inoperative and not enforced 
 " at all." Rev. John Russell, " the father of Prohi- 
 " bition in Michigan," wrote to the Commission to 
 the same effect, saying, " the prohibitory clauses 
 " of the law were not generally enforced." Yet 
 the law itself, in this State, was, according to the 
 judgment of the Commission, " the best prohibi- 
 " tory law " they found anywhere. The reasons 
 for its non-enforcement are not pointed out. It 
 was doubtless due to the twin causes of public 
 indifference and official apathy. 
 
100 THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Rhode Island. The report of the Commission 
 gives but little of fact in regard to the results in 
 this State during the period from 1854 to 1862. 
 A letter is quoted from Hon. W. R. Watson, 
 Secretary of State, written in 1854, in which 
 emphatic testimony was given as to the good 
 results of the law, but the letter gives only gen- 
 eral statements, not specific facts, such as : " Its 
 " effect, I cannot doubt, has been greatly to 
 "diminish crime, pauperism, insanity, and that 
 " long dark catalogue of evils moral, social and 
 "physical which result from intemperance." 
 Something more specific than this is given by the 
 Commission for the year 1852, during which the 
 State was under a prohibitory law which was 
 soon pronounced unconstitutional. The figures 
 given for Providence county show a reduction in 
 the number of committals to the county jail, from 
 161 in the license year of 1851, to 99 in the 
 prohibitory year of 1852 ; and a reduction in 
 the number of committals for drunkenness in 
 the city of Providence, from 282 in three 
 months of 1851, to 177 in the corresponding 
 three months of 1852. The conclusion drawn 
 by the Commission in reference to this State 
 is probably safe enough as far as it goes, 
 namely, that the law was "in some parts of the 
 " State well enforced, in others not." (p. 49.) 
 
 Connecticut. In this State, according to the 
 annual messages of Governor Button and Gov- 
 ernor Minor, >ii 1855 and 1856 respectively, the 
 
THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 101 
 
 law was well enforced in those years and its bene- 
 fits were marked. Governor Dutton said, as 
 quoted by the Commission (p. 78.) : "There is 
 " scarcely an open grog-shop in the State, the jails 
 44 are fast becoming tenantless, and a delightful 
 " air of security is everywhere enjoyed." Gov- 
 ernor Minor's statements are to a similar effect, 
 as are also those quoted from Dr. Leonard 
 Bacon, then and now a sturdy opponent of Pro- 
 hibition. Dr. Bacon said : ***'* its [the 
 " law's] effect in promoting peace, order, quiet, 
 44 and general prosperity no man can deny. Never 
 44 for twenty years has our city [New Haven] 
 44 been so quiet as under its action." These testi- 
 timonies, it will be noticed, refer entirely to the 
 first two years after the law was enacted. (Dr. 
 Bacon afterward testified before the Joint Special 
 Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, that 
 the year after his testimony just quoted was 
 given, the political control of the city passed into 
 the hands of a party hostile to the law, and the 
 good effects of Prohibition soon disappeared.) 
 The only facts given by the Commission for later 
 years were the number of jail committals in the 
 State for the prohibitory year 1866, and for the 
 two years (1873-4) following the law's repeal. In 
 1866 the number of commitments is given as 
 1576* ; in the year ending March, 1873 (partly a 
 license and partly a prohibitory year), they num- 
 
 * This is the number given iu the Report of the Commission. Official 
 figures for that year give the number as 1827. For the other years, 
 1878-4. the figures given by the Commission agree with the official 
 figures. 
 
102 THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 bered 2985 ; in the year ending March 1874 
 (wholly a license year) they numbered 4481. 
 (Complete official figures will be found in Appen- 
 dix, note D, showing the number of commitments 
 in Connecticut for the entire period under Pro- 
 hibition 1854-1873, as well as under license 
 1873-1884). 
 
 Massachusettes. In this State the Commission 
 seem to have investigated results with more care 
 than was bestowed upon any other State. The 
 evidence obtained was of two kinds, the opinions 
 of public men, and official statistics. Nearly all 
 this evidence, however, pertains to the period im- 
 mediately following the close of the Civil war. It 
 seems to have been generally understood that for 
 the period of 1856-1866 the enforcement of the 
 law was not at all general. " For ten years it was 
 tk a dead letter act," is the statement made to the 
 Commission by Captain Boy n ton, chief of the 
 State Police. 
 
 In the year 1867, however, a vigorous effort was 
 made for the enforcement of the law, through a 
 State constabulary appointed for that special pur- 
 pose. This enforcement led to a combined assault 
 upon the law by all its opponents, which resulted 
 in its repeal November, 1867, the new regime of 
 license lasting until 1869. The comparisons be- 
 tween 1867 and 1868, one a prohibitory and one a 
 license year, are furnished by the Commission's 
 report as follows : 
 
 The commitments to the Massachusettes State 
 
THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN' PARLIAMENT. 103 
 
 prison, which in the first nine months of 1866, a year 
 of unenforced Prohibition, had numbered 156, fell 
 in the first nine months of the year following, under 
 the vigorous efforts to enforce the law, to 80. In 
 the next year (1868) under license, they numbered, 
 for the corresponding nine months, 143. (The 
 figures are given for nine months of each year, 
 instead of twelve, because the prohibitory law 
 was in force but nine months of 1867.) The 
 inspectors of the State prison, in their official re- 
 port, attribute this increase in commitments in 
 1868 to the repeal of the prohibitory law. 
 
 In the city of Boston, where the efforts to en- 
 force the law in 1867 were less successful than 
 anywhere else in the State, the reports of the 
 Chief of Police show nevertheless an increase in 
 the cases of drunk and disorderly, from 6690 for 
 the last six months of 1867 (which includes two 
 months after the repeal of Prohibition*) to 8053 
 in the corresponding months of 1868. In addi- 
 tion to this increase, the record showed an increase 
 of 3838 in the number of station-house lodgers 
 (vagrants), and an increase of 248 in the number 
 of criminal arrests. The following shows the 
 total increase : 
 
 Increase of criminal arrests 248 
 
 Increase of station-house lodgers 338 
 
 Increase of drunkenness and assaults 1363 
 
 Increase for the six months under the license system 5,449 
 
 In addition to this increase, there was an in- 
 
 * The license law did not, legally, go into effect until 1868, but prac- 
 tically the prohibitory law became inoperative with the election of 
 November, 1867, 
 
104 THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 crease during the same period of six months of 
 4 ^not far from twenty-five per cent." to "the vari- 
 " ous correctional and pauper institutions of Suf- 
 "folk county." 
 
 A still fuller comparison was made in the 
 Report of the Board of State Charities, in 1868. 
 In most cases, under the prohibitory law, the 
 drunkard was punished with a fine only ; when 
 the fine could not be paid, the offender was sent 
 to Jail, to the House of Correction, or to the 
 House of Industry. The number of such com- 
 mitments increased in the entire State from 2501 
 in six months of 1867 (April October) to 3170 
 in the corresponding six months of 1868. 
 
 The Governor of the State (Governor Claflin), 
 the State Constable, the Board of Inspectors of 
 the State Prison, and the Board of State Charities, 
 all called attention, in very emphatic language, to 
 this increase of crime, and all, without exception, 
 attributed it to the repeal of the prohibitory law* 
 In consequence of this increase of crime Prohibi 
 tion was re-enacted, going again into force Jann 
 ary, 1870, but in the same year additional legisla- 
 tion was enacted exempting malt liquors from the 
 provisions of the law. The figures indicate but a 
 slight decrease of crime during the following 
 years. From the fall of 1873 to the fall of 1874, 
 there was another year of complete prohibitory 
 law, the enforcement of which seems to have at- 
 tained a fair degree of efficiency toward the close 
 of the year, when again, as in 1867, the enemies 
 
THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 105 
 
 of the law rallied at the polls and elected a license 
 legislature, by which license and local option laws 
 were enacted in 1875, which are still in force. 
 
 In the foregoing brief resume, little reference 
 has been made to other evidence than that embod- 
 ied in the report of the Canadian Commissioners. 
 Importance is attached to that report for two rea- 
 sons : (1) Because it embodies the result of an of- 
 ficial investigation made soon after the trial of 
 Prohibition in these States had come to an end, 
 and while facts were fresh in the minds of men 
 regarding it ; (2) Because this investigation was 
 conducted by officials from a neighboring king- 
 dom, who, it is to be presumed, were entirely free 
 from either political or personal entanglements 
 that might have biased their minds. The evi- 
 dence adduced by this Commission was obtained 
 by personal visitation to the States mentioned, 
 and communication, either orally or by letter, 
 with those whose testimonies are given. 
 
 Other evidence confirms the general character 
 of this report. In 1867 a Joint Special Commit- 
 tee was appointed by the Massachusetts Legisla- 
 ture to investigate the effects of the prohibitory 
 law in that State. The committee held twenty- 
 seven sittings in Boston, early in 1867, and exam- 
 ined 108 witnesses summoned by those opposing 
 the prohibitory law, 75 witnesses summoned by 
 the friends of the law, and 9 witnesses from the 
 College of Pharmacy who had petitioned for a re- 
 peal of the law. Among these witnesses were 
 
106 THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 ex-Governors, constables, sheriffs, judges, attor- 
 neys, city missionaries, mayors, chiefs of police, 
 college professors, ministers, physicians, manufac- 
 turers and others. The testimony of each is 
 given in the Report of the Committee, which is 
 published in a large octavo volume of 898 pages. 
 The testimonies given by eminent men in regard 
 to the effects of the prohibitory law were so diver- 
 gent, that the only conclusion to be drawn is that 
 the effects of the law (prior to 1867) had been 
 equally divergent in different portions of the 
 State. As an almost invariable rule, however, 
 those known as temperance men expressed them- 
 selves emphatically in favor of the law, while 
 with few exceptions the witnesses summoned by 
 the opponents of the law acknowledged their 
 habits of drinking. As a result of this investiga- 
 tion, eight of the committee signed a report in 
 favor of the repeal of the law and six signed 
 reports in favor of its continuance. 
 
 The figures showing the commitments to Jail in 
 Connecticut for each year from 1852 to 1872 (the 
 period of Prohibition), and from 1872 to 1884 (a 
 period of license,) have been compiled with much 
 care by E. P. Augur, of Middletown, Conn., (see 
 Appendix, note D.), from official returns and jail 
 records. These figures show, despite the lax 
 enforcement of the prohibitory law, a marked in- 
 crease of crime immediately upon the repeal of 
 the law. Taking the commitments to Jail during 
 the years of Prohibition following the war, 
 
THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 107 
 
 namely, 1866-1872, inclusive, and the first seven 
 years following its repeal, and we have the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 SEVEN YEARS UNDER PROHIBI- SEVEN YEARS OF LICENSE AND 
 
 TORY LAW. LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 1856 1827 1873 4481 
 
 1867 1693 1874 4448 
 
 1868 1821 1875 4425 
 
 1869 2246 *1876 3103 
 
 1870 2593 1877 4149 
 
 1871 2805 1878 4577 
 
 1872 2985 f!879 3834 
 
 15.970 29,017 
 
 *Eight months only. 
 fTramp law went into effect. 
 
 The increase of population in Connecticut, from 
 1860 to 1880, was on an average 1.76 per cent, 
 each year. This would give an increase in seven 
 years of 12.32 per cent., while the increase in jail 
 commitments in the seven years after the repeal 
 of the law, was nearly 82 per cent., more than six 
 and one-half times as great. 
 
 The commitments for drunkenness and common 
 drunkards, during these same years, were as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 SEVEN YEARS UNDER PROHIBI- SEVEN YEARS UNDER LICENSE 
 TORY LAW. AND LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 1866 :. 537 1873 2125 
 
 1867 484 1874 2044 
 
 1868 575 1875 2175 
 
 1869 842 *1876 1347 
 
 1870 1050 1877 1734 
 
 1871 1290 1878 2141 
 
 1872 1470 |1879 1O8 
 
 6248 13,194 
 
 *Eight months only. 
 fTramp law went into effect. 
 
 These figures show an increase of more than 
 100 per cent., in the commitments to jail for drunk- 
 
108 THE INQUIRY BY THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 en ness, after the repeal of the prohibitory law, 
 and in spite of the fact that many towns took ad- 
 vantage of the local option law to refuse license 
 to saloons. It should be borne in mind also that 
 the seven years of prohibitory law here given 
 were, in most respects, the worst years for the 
 law, ensuing immediately after the return to civil 
 life of the Federal soldiers, with the drink-habits 
 formed amid the hardships of camp-life, and be- 
 ing years during which an incessant agitation for 
 the repeal of the law was kept up. 
 
 The general conclusions which it is safe to draw 
 from the facts developed in regard to these four 
 States Michigan, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and 
 Massachusetts are about as follows : 
 
 1. That in these four States, during the greater 
 part of the period in which prohibitory law pre- 
 vailed, there was no vigorous and general enforc- 
 nient of the law. 
 
 2. That this period was, for the most part, iden- 
 tical with that immediately preceding and during 
 the war. 
 
 3. That in those years in which the law was 
 enforced with vigor, there was an immediate and 
 marked decrease of crime. 
 
 Proceeding, then, to consider the results in the 
 five States which now have prohibitory laws, 
 namely, Maine, Vermont, Kansas, Iowa, and 
 Rhode Island, we find that the two first named 
 have had almost continuous Prohibition for more 
 than a generation. The other three States 
 
named. 
 
 THE RESULTS IX MAINE. 109 
 
 the policy in the order in which they are 
 
 2, The Results in Maine. 
 
 This WAS the pioneer State in the movement, 
 and gave ^o State Prohibition the first trial it had 
 ever had. The initial movement leading to the 
 adoption o/ the policy took place prior to 1840, 
 and had its origin in the mind and heart of Gene- 
 ral James Apple ton, a citizen of Portland, who 
 was in 1837 a member of the State Legislature. 
 The policy was first adopted by the Legislature in 
 1846, but certain essential clauses were lacking to 
 the law until 1851, when General Neal Dow 
 framed a bill which was enacted into law and has 
 become known to the world as " The Maine 
 Law." The important feature added by General 
 Dow was the search and seizure clause. 
 
 The law became at once a political issue of 
 magnitude. Five years later its enemies, by a 
 political coalition, succeeded in electing a hostile 
 Legislature, by which the law was repealed, and a 
 stringent license law substituted. 
 
 The triumph over the law was a short-lived 
 one. Out of the changing political conditions of 
 that time was born, in 1854, the Republican party, 
 which in Maine, the State of its birth, planted 
 itself on the two issues of Abolition and Prohibi- 
 tion. Succeeding to power in the Legislature the 
 following year, instead of at once re-enacting the 
 law, it was submitted to popular vote and by a 
 
110 THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 majority of 22,952 (28,864 for, 5912 against) 
 Prohibition was adopted. The law therefore was 
 re-enacted in 1858, after two years of license, and 
 with various additions has remained the law of 
 the State ever since. It was not, however, em- 
 bodied in the State Constitution until 1884. 
 Being voted on in September of that year, after 
 thirty years' trial, it received a majority of nearly 
 three to one in its favor (70,783 for, 23,811 
 against). 
 
 Twice, then, the verdict of the citizens of 
 Maine has been taken by popular vote, once after 
 five years of trial, and once after thirty years of 
 trial. Twice the verdict rendered has been in its 
 favor, and by a majority twice as large in the sec- 
 ond instance as in the first. 
 
 In making their inquiry in 1874, the Canadian 
 Commission already referred to, bestowed a large 
 share of their attention on Maine. Inquiries were 
 directed to those whose official positions gave 
 them the best opportunities for knowing the facts, 
 and were directed to those opposing as well as to 
 those favoring the principle of Prohibition. As 
 an indication of the extent to which the Commis- 
 sion conducted its investigation, the names are 
 here given of those from whom they obtained 
 responses, either orally or by letter, namely : 
 Governor Dingley, ex- Attorney-General Drum- 
 mond, Judge Clifford, of the United States 
 Supreme Court ; an ex-Mayor of Portland ; Alder- 
 man Carleton, of Portland; Mr. Hobbs, of "The 
 
THE RESULTS Itf MAINE. Ill 
 
 Portland Argus;" Deputy Marshal Brydges, of 
 Portland ; Inspector-General Alger, of Bangor ; 
 Judge Goodman, of the Bangor Police Court ; 
 Recorder Lyons, of the same Court ; Mayor Blake 
 and Alderman Crosby, of Bangor ; Warden Rice, 
 of the State Prison ; Secretary of State Stacy, 
 Judges True, Farwell, and Bennoch, of Augusta, 
 Rockland, and Orous, respectively; two select- 
 men of Orous, the Overseer of the Poor, in Ban- 
 gor ; the City Marshal of Rockland, and the pro- 
 prietor of a hotel in Rockland. 
 
 In addition to the opinions obtained from the 
 above men, official reports and messages are 
 quoted from Governors Chamberlain, Perham, 
 and Dingley, and from the Mayors and City 
 Marshals of Lewiston, Bangor, Rockland, and 
 Augusta. 
 
 Two of the questions asked by the Commission 
 were as follows : 
 
 " Is the liquor law enforced, and, if not, what is 
 
 the hindrance to its working ? " 
 " What have been the results of a change from 
 Prohibition to license, or vice versa ? " 
 In the replies received to these two questions, 
 one thing is especially noticeable, namely, that 
 while many, especially those resident in Portland 
 and Bangor, admit that there is a lax enforcement 
 of the law, yet all, without exception, testify to the 
 good results of the law even when it is poorly 
 enforced. 
 
112 THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 A few extracts will indicate the nature of the 
 replies on this point. United States Justice Far- 
 well said : " The law being on the statute book, 
 44 even if not enforced, has a good moral influence. 
 " as it familiarizes the people with the fact that 
 " rum is outside of law." " Where the law is only 
 partially enforced," said Warderf Rice, of the 
 State Prison, " it has a good influence because it 
 "outlaws the traffic." Mayor Blake, of Bangor, 
 though expressing his preference for a license law 
 for cities, stated that, " although the law had beep 
 "only partially enforced, yet the sale of liquor 
 "had been driven into the lowest quarters and 
 " into the hands of the most disreputable class, 
 " and that certainly the absence of the open sale 
 "diminished drinking and consequently crime." 
 
 In fact, however great the diversity of opinion 
 expressed in regard to the extent to which the law 
 was enforced, there was absolute unanimity on 
 this point, that, whether well enforced or not, the 
 law accomplished certain excellent results. This 
 is a point that requires explanation. Just how a 
 law, not enforced, can accomplish such results, is 
 at first thought an enigma. Consideration will 
 be given to this point farther on ; at present the 
 aim is simply to ascertain facts. 
 
 An opinion of especial value, both by reason of 
 the high position of the one expressing it and the 
 care with which, evidently, it was given, was that 
 from Judge Woodbury Davis, for ten years a 
 member of the Supreme Court of Maine. On 
 
THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 113 
 
 the point to which attention has been called 
 
 already, Judge Davis says : 
 
 "Such laws are not valueless even in communi- 
 ties where they are but rarely enforced. As 
 teachers of public conscience, the standard of 
 which is seldom higher than human law, their 
 value is above all price." 
 Speaking of the extent to which the law was 
 
 enforced, Judge Davis says: 
 
 " Of our four hundred cities and towns, making 
 the estimates below what I believe the facts 
 would justify, I am satisfied that in more than 
 one hundred the law prevents any sale of liquor 
 whatever for a beverage. In at least two hun- 
 dred of them it is sold only in the way that Dr. 
 Bacon calls 'on the sly,' just as in the same 
 towns there are persons guilty of lewdness and 
 other crimes. In most of the other hundred 
 towns liquors are sold probably without much 
 restraint." 
 
 So much for opinions on the law and its results, 
 as obtained by the Canadian Commissioners. The 
 figures obtained were equally instructive, though 
 the Commission was hampered somewhat in this 
 respect by the fact that a number of the cities in 
 Maine, especially Portland, Bangor and Augusta, 
 " had suffered from fires that had, to a very great 
 " extent, destroyed their public records." 
 
 The Warden of the State Prison supplies 
 figures showing the number of committals to the 
 
 s 
 
114 THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 prison for the two years (1855-56) just before the 
 prohibitory law was repealed, the two years (1857- 
 58) during which the prohibitory law was replaced 
 with a stringent license law, and the two years 
 (1859-60) after the re-enactment of Prohibition. A 
 better test could hardly be imagined. The follow- 
 ing are the figures : 
 
 COMMITMENTS TO STATE PRISON OF MAINE. 
 
 TWO YEARS OF PRO- 
 HIBITIONS 
 
 1855 29 
 
 TWO YEARS OF LI- 
 CENSE. 
 1857 52 
 
 TWO YEARS OF PRO- 
 HIBITION. 
 
 1859 . * 48 
 
 1856 36 
 
 1858 69 
 
 I860 4 1 
 
 65 
 
 121 
 
 ~88 
 
 Here, it will be noticed, there appeared an imme- 
 diate increase in commitments as soon as the pro- 
 hibitory law was repealed, and an immediate 
 decrease as soon as the law was re-enacted. 
 
 The City Marshal of Bangor, in his report the 
 year after the law was repealed, calls attention to 
 the increase of crime, as follows : 
 " In my report relating to matters connected with 
 the Police Department of the city, at the close 
 of the municipal year 1851-52, I stated that 
 the city had been freer from crime and dis- 
 turbance than during the year previous, or any 
 year since I had been connected with the affairs 
 of the city. This I attributed to the stringent 
 law passed in 1851 for the suppression of drink- 
 ing houses and tippling shops. This year [under 
 license] I have to report that never, since I 
 have had any acquaintance with the Police 
 
THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 115 
 
 Department of this city, have there been so 
 
 many commitments for offences as during the 
 
 year now closed." 
 
 According to the report of the sarne official, the 
 arrests in Bangor for drunkenness, disorderly con- 
 duct and assaults, numbered 93 in the last eight 
 months (1850-51) preceding Prohibition, and 45 
 for the first eight months under Prohibition. 
 
 Bangor and Portland were at this time the only 
 two cities in Maine with a population of more 
 than 10,000. In Portland, the effects of the law 
 wefe still more marked. In Cumberland county 
 (including Portland) according to figures quoted 
 by the Commission from a work on " The Maine 
 Liquor Law: Its Origin, History, and Results," 
 by H. S. Chubbs, Secretary of the Maine Law 
 Statistical Society, the results were as follows : 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 Ii'* 
 
 1'g." 1 
 
 1-1 o 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 O .3 
 
 -J 3 
 
 "cS 
 
 
 3 
 
 t-Q 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 of 
 
 d 
 
 
 ?! 
 
 ?l 
 
 ! 1 
 
 Number of commitments to County Jails, excluding 
 of those for violating the liquor IHVV 
 
 279 
 
 63 
 
 m 
 
 Commitments to Watch House 
 
 431 
 
 180 
 
 251 
 
 Commitments to Alms House 
 
 252 
 
 146 
 
 106 
 
 Commitments for drunkenness to the House of Cor- 
 
 
 
 
 rection 
 
 *34 
 
 ra 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 996 
 
 397 
 
 599 
 
 *Five months. 
 tFor seven months. 
 
 From these figures it appears that in Cumber- 
 land county, containing the largest city in the 
 
116 THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 State, the committals were reduced sixty per cent., 
 in the first nine months of Prohibition. In these 
 two cities therefore, Portland and Bangor, the law 
 seems at the beginning, without any doubt, to have 
 been attended with a most marked reduction in 
 crime. That this result Avas general throughout 
 the State seems to be shown by the figures given 
 by the Warden of the State Prison, and might 
 have been inferred from the fact that in these two 
 cities the enforcement of the law has always been 
 attended with greatest difficulty. 
 
 The condition in Maine during the last few 
 years, under the prohibitory law, has been the sub- 
 ject of much discussion and contradictory testi- 
 mony. On the one hand it has been asserted by 
 credible investigators that the law fails of its pur- 
 pose, in that saloons are prevalent and drunkenness 
 is rife. Other equally credible witnesses assert just 
 as emphatically that the law, if it has not made an 
 end to the traffic, has checked it to a great extent 
 and disrobed it of its attractiveness. The only 
 official statistics bearing directly on the question 
 are those of the Internal Revenue Department. 
 A special tax of $25.00 is imposed by the Federal 
 Government on every retail liquor-dealer in the 
 nation. As the penalties for selling at retail 
 before having paid this tax are very severe, there 
 are few who undertake, even in prohibitory States, 
 to evade the payment of this tax. The records of 
 the Internal Revenue Department show, therefore, 
 from year to year, the number of those selling at 
 
THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 117 
 
 retail in each State. But the records show more 
 than this, especially for prohibitory States, for the 
 payment of this tax does not give any one the 
 right to sell liquor in violation either of State or 
 local laws. John Smith, for instance, may under- 
 take the sale of liquor in Maine. The first step 
 he takes is likely to be the payment of this twenty- 
 five dollar tax, inasmuch as his failure to do so 
 will be a penitentiary offence, and since until 
 January, 1888, the payment of this tax was not 
 held to be prima facie evidence against him.* If 
 after the payment of this tax, the officers of the 
 State discover that John Smith is selling liquor 
 contrary to the law of the State, and place him in 
 the jail and his stock of liquors in the sewer, the 
 payment of the federal tax does not save him. 
 But, just the same, though he may have been sell- 
 ing only a week, the Internal Revenue Report 
 includes him of course in the list of special tax 
 payers for Maine. Neal Dow is authority for the 
 statement that at one time, a few years ago, there 
 were in the Portland jail forty of these special tax- 
 payers. 
 
 So that the reports show not only the number 
 of actual open and secret dealers in liquor, includ- 
 ing tovyn agents and druggists, but the number of 
 would-be dealers as well. The aggregate number 
 of all these has been for the last few years, accord- 
 ing to the Internal Revenue Reports, as follows : 
 
 *The decision made by Judge Whitehouse, that the prima facie act 
 was unconstitutional, was not reversed by the State Supreme Court 
 until January, 1888. 
 
118 THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquor 1054 
 
 1883 j Retail " " malt lt 108 
 
 Total 1162 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquor ... 974 
 
 1884 j Retail " " jnalt ' 103 
 
 Total 1077 
 
 (Retail dealers in distilled liquor.... ....1014 
 
 1885^ Retail " " malt " 80 
 
 Total 1094 
 
 (Retail dealers in distilled liquor 951 
 
 1886-j Retail " " malt " 73 
 
 Total 1024 
 
 (Retail dealers in distilled liquor.... .... 919 
 
 1887 -j Retail " " malt ' 92 
 
 Total 1011 
 
 During these and the preceding years the State 
 of Maine constituted an Internal Revenue district 
 by itself. In 1888 it was combined with Vermont 
 and New Hampshire, and the figures for the three 
 States are given together, the number of retail 
 dealers being in that year 2427 for the three 
 States, a decrease of 461 from the preceding year. 
 
 Comparing Maine with the four New England 
 States, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 
 and New Hampshire (the manufacture of liquor is 
 allowed by law in the last State and the sale fol- 
 lows with little hindrance), and we find, by the 
 figures of the Internal Revenue Department, the 
 following results : 
 
 In Maine one retail dealer, on an average, from 1883 to 1888, to 610 
 of population. 
 
 In New Hampshire, one to 263 of population 
 
 In Rhode Island, " " 217 " 
 
 Tn Connecticut, ' 213" 
 
 In Massachusetts, ' 242 " 
 
 One other thing the Internal Revenue Reports 
 
THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 119 
 
 tell us, and that is the amount of liquor manufac- 
 tured in each State. The records for Maine dur- 
 ing the last live years are as follows : 
 
 i ooo (Distilled liquor None 
 
 * 3 \Malt liquor. " 
 
 188J. $ Distilled liquor None 
 
 m I Malt liquor 
 
 is* 5 Distilled liquor None 
 
 1885 \ Malt liquor , " 
 
 isRfi 5 Distilled liquor None 
 
 Pi-Malt liquor 2170 galls 
 
 -as? J Distilled liquor None 
 
 1 {Malt liquor " 
 
 So much for the story as told by the Reports of 
 the Internal Revenue Department. It is, in brief, 
 that there is practically no liquor produced in 
 Maine, and that the number of retail dealers, 
 including town agents, druggists, and open and 
 secret violators of law, is but little more than one- 
 third as large, in proportion to population, as in the 
 four other New England States. 
 
 So far as personal testimony goes, it is exceed- 
 ingly contradictory ; but this has been, broadly 
 speaking, the case^ that those who were opponents 
 of the law have testified against it, and those who 
 were friends of the law have testified in its favor. 
 Justin McCarthy, in 1874, after personal investiga- 
 tion, concluded that the law was a failure. Canon 
 Farrar, in 1885, after a personal investigation also, 
 concluded that it was an undoubted success. But 
 Justin McCarthy, as well as Canon Farrar, agreed 
 that the voice of the people in Maine was strongly 
 in favor of the law. This appears also from th 
 
120 THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 
 
 vote on the prohibitory amendment taken, as has 
 been stated, in 1884, after thirty-one years of trial 
 of the law, the vote standing three in favor of the 
 amendment to every one against. This seems to 
 bear out the statement made by Congressman 
 (now Senator) Frye, of Maine, in a letter to the 
 Chicago Advance March 19, 1874, in which he 
 said: " When the law was enacted I have no doubt 
 " two-thirds of the people were at heart opposed 
 " to it ; now they could not to be induced to repeal 
 "it." 
 
 Every Governor of Maine, from 1867 down to 
 the present time, has publicly borne testimony to 
 the good results of the law, the following catch- 
 words sufficing to show the nature of their testi- 
 mony in each case : Gov. Chamberlain : " as well 
 executed generally in the State as other criminal 
 laws are ; " Governor Perham referring to liquor 
 trade : " probably not one tenth as large " [as 
 before Prohibition] ; Governor Dingley : " has 
 effectually closed both open and secret dram-shops 
 in three-fourths of Maine ; " Governor Robie : 
 "has worked immense advantages for the State of 
 " Maine ; " Governor Bodwell : " nowhere that I 
 "have been are the people so free from all the 
 " evils incident to the liquor traffic as ' in this 
 "State." 
 
 Testimonies just as strong as these against the 
 law could, no doubt, be cited, but very few, if any, 
 of them would be from public men resident in the 
 State and daily under the operations of the law. 
 
THE RESULTS IN MAINE. 121 
 
 If one attempts to explain this uniform testimony 
 of the public men of Maine in favor of the work- 
 ing of the law, by attributing it to political inter- 
 est, one has still to explain why it is that political 
 interest in Maine requires political leaders to be 
 outspoken in favor of the law. In 1885, The 
 Voice, of New York, published the opinions of 
 Mayors and Selectmen of towns and cities in 
 Maine. The request had been sent to the Mayor 
 of every city having a population of one thousand 
 or more. Of the replies received, forty-two 
 declared the law to be an unqualified success, and 
 the saloon to be, in those cities, entirely extirpated. 
 In ten cities, the open t>aloon was said to be 
 unknown, but liquor was sold in secret. In eight 
 cities, the law was declared to be an unqualified 
 failure, and saloons to be running openly. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is admitted that in all the larger 
 cities of Maine, liquor is still sold, and in some of 
 them the liquor traffic openly defies the law, and 
 is carried on without concealment. This has been 
 the case in Bangor and Belfast, and frequently in 
 Portland, Neal Dow stated in 1885 that there 
 were one hundred places in Portland where liquor 
 was sold, not including forty drug stores. Volney 
 B. Gushing (Prohibition candidate for Governor 
 in 1887) said in that year that in his home 
 Bangor there were one hundred -saloons openly 
 defying the law and 813 out of 1094 arrests the 
 year before were for drunkenness. To assert that 
 the liquor traffic has been eradicated in Maine, 
 
THE RESULTS IN VERMONT. 122 
 
 would be flying in the face of numberless testi- 
 monies from unimpeachable witnesses. But to 
 deny that the law has been attended with a 
 marked decrease of crime and drunkenness, and 
 that it has very greatly checked the sale of liquor 
 and the habit of drinking, is to contradict the 
 report of the Canadian Commission, the official 
 figures of the Internal Revenue Department, and 
 i the overwhelming verdict of the people of Maine 
 after a trial of the law for more than a generation. 
 
 3. The Results in Vermont. 
 
 Much less interest has seemed to attach to 
 Vermont than to other prohibitory States, partly 
 because it is a small State having but one-half the 
 population of Maine, and partly because of its 
 proximity to the latter State in which the law was 
 first tried and from which it has received the name 
 by which it is popularly known. In some respects 
 chiefly the size and the inland situation of the 
 State the trial of Prohibition in Vermont has 
 taken place under more advantageous conditions 
 than in any other State. But the law itself has 
 been by no means as stringent as in Maine, nor as 
 in Kansas and Iowa. The teeth of a criminal law 
 are in its penalties, and these are very light in the 
 Vermont law. The fine for a first offence in selling 
 contrary to the law is but ten dollars ; for a second 
 offence, but twenty dollars ; for a third offence, 
 twenty dollars and imprisonment not less than 
 three months. The same fines are imposed for 
 
THE RESULTS IN VERMONT. 128 
 
 keeping intoxicating liquor for sale, and a fine of 
 $100 is imposed on conviction of being a common 
 seller. 
 
 The Internal Revenue Reports give the follow- 
 ing figures for Vermont : 
 
 ( Retail dealers In distilled liquors 454 
 
 1883 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 62 
 
 Total 616 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors 439 
 
 1884 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 47 
 
 Total 486 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors 426 
 
 1885 < Retail dealers in malt liquors .' 59 
 
 Total 485 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors 516 
 
 1886 j Retail dealers in malt liquors 49 
 
 Total 565 
 
 Retail dealers in distilled liquors 448 
 
 1887 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 50 
 
 Total ................................................................................................. 498 
 
 The average number during these five years 
 has been 510, a proportion of one to 659 of 
 population, a smaller proportion even than in 
 Maine. The following are the figures for the pro- 
 duction of liquor in Vermont : 
 
 ISSQ S Distilled liquors ............... ................................... none 
 
 w ( Malt liquors .............................................................. none 
 
 ioa/t S Distilled liquors ......................... . none 
 
 54 J Malt liquors ...................... ............................. ......... none 
 
 18S c J Distilled liquors .......................................... .. none 
 
 55 I Malt liquors ............................................................... none 
 
 issft / Distilled liquors .......................... .. 597 galls. 
 
 D \ Malt liquors ............................................................... none 
 
 IRS? $ Distilled liquors .............................. , .. 863 galls. 
 
 " j Malt liquors .............................................................. none 
 
 In Maine and Vermont, therefore, the sum total 
 of liquor produced in the five years from 1883 to 
 1887 inclusive was 2,630 gallons of distilled liq- 
 
124 THE RESULTS IX KANSAS. 
 
 uor, most of which in all probability was for use 
 in the arts. 
 
 4. The Results in Kansas. 
 
 The prohibitory amendment to the Constitu- 
 tion of Kansas was adopted in 1880, and enforcing 
 legislation went into effect in 1881. For a period 
 of four years the liquor dealers maintained an 
 open fight in many of the larger cities, plying 
 their trade with but little effort at concealment. 
 In 1885 an amendatory law was passed by the 
 legislature which declared saloons, breweries, and 
 distilleries to be common nuisances and authoriz- 
 ing any citizen, by an action in the nature of a 
 suit in equity, to abate and perpetually enjoin 
 them. 
 
 With that year the reign of Prohibition in Kan- 
 sas may be said to have been firmly established. 
 The open defiance of the saloons in the large cit- 
 ies was changed to secret subversion of the law, 
 many of the liquor dealers taking advantage of 
 the privileges accorded to druggists, to convert 
 their saloons into pseudo drug-stores, and thus 
 continue the outlawed business. In 1887, the 
 passage of the Murray law did away to a great ex- 
 tent with that subterfuge. The Murray law made 
 it unlawful for any but a registered pharmacist 
 to sell liquor, and required each pharmacist 
 to undergo examination before he could be regis^ 
 tered. 
 
 The hopes of the liquor dealers then hung on 
 
THE RESULTS IN KANSAS. 125 
 
 the decisions of the courts. Judge Brewer, of 
 the U. S. Circuit Court of Kansas, had, in Febru- 
 ary, 1886, decided that a brewery or distillery 
 could not be prohibited and enjoined as a nuisance 
 by the State unless compensation was rendered 
 the owner. The case was appealed to the U. S. 
 Supreme Court, by which the opinion of Judge 
 Brewer was reversed (see Appendix, note A), in 
 December, 1887. That year the last brewery was 
 closed, and its proprietor thrown into jail, from 
 which place he wrote, May 21, 1887, to the U. S. 
 Brewers' Association, then assembled in National 
 Convention in Baltimore, saying : " * * * ft 
 does not pay to keep up the fight any longer." 
 The same year the trade report of the liquor busi- 
 ness in Kansas City, Mo., the chief base of sup- 
 plies up to that time for the liquor dealers of 
 Kansas, said : 
 
 "Wholesale liquor dealers say they have with- 
 drawn their traveling men from Kansas within 
 the last six months, and that they are making 
 no effort whatever to do business in that State. 
 * * * * p or a t{ me a fter the adoption 
 of Prohibition in Kansas, liquor dealers in Kan- 
 sas City did a large business with the drug 
 stores, but since they have been stopped from 
 retailing liquor the trade has dwindled to al- 
 most nothing." 
 
 From the Reports of the Internal Revenue De- 
 partment, and from the U. S. Census Report of 
 
126 THE RESULTS IN KANSAS. 
 
 population in 1880, and the State Census in 1885. 
 the following figures are obtained : 
 
 l Retail dealers in distilled liquors 1821 
 
 1880 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 117 
 
 Total 1938 Ifor 514 population. 
 
 ! Retail dealers in distilled liquors 1132 
 Retail dealers in malt liquors 56 
 
 Total 1118 1 for 918 population. 
 
 C Retail dealers in distilled liquors 1460 
 
 1882 j Retail dealers in malt liquors 52 
 
 Total 1512 Ifor 784 population. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors.... 1898 
 
 1883 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 51 
 
 Total 1949. 1 for 695 population. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors 1948 
 
 1884 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 77 
 
 Total 2025. 1 for 600 population. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors... 2086 
 1885 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 65 
 
 Total 2151. 1 for 590 population. 
 
 Retail dealers in distilled liquors... 2318 
 1886 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 83 
 
 Total 2401. 1 for 663 population. 
 
 C Retail dealers in distilled liquors... 2098 
 1887 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 84 
 
 Total 2182. 1 for 658 population. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors... 1277 
 1888 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 119 
 
 Total 1396. 1 for 1087 population. 
 
 These figures show a decrease in the number of 
 retail dealers from one for 514 of population 
 in 1880, the year before Prohibition was enacted, 
 to one for 1087 of population in the year 1888. 
 Especially is this decrease apparent in the last 
 two years, since the Murray law went into force. 
 When it is borne in mind that the figures just 
 given represent not only all the successful viola^ 
 
THE RESULTS IN KANSAS. 127 
 
 tors of law, but all the unsuccessful ones as well, 
 the decrease becomes still more striking. 
 
 The Attorney General of Kansas in his Sixth 
 Biennial Report (1887-88) estimates that the 
 number of places where liquor was actually sold 
 in 1888 is less than one half the number given in 
 the preceding table. He says : 
 "By an accurate mathematical calculation, 
 based upon official reports made to this Depart- 
 ment, I have ascertained that there is now in 
 Kansas, in 1888, not to exceed one place where 
 liquor is sold to every 2220 people the smallest 
 percentage of any State in the Union. When 
 we take into consideration the stringent regula- 
 tions under which it is sold, we are safe in say- 
 ing that there is not to exceed ten per cent, as 
 much liquor sold in Kansas in 1888 as there was 
 in 1880." (Sixth Biennial Report of the Atty. 
 Genl. of Kansas, p. 10.) 
 
 Official figures showing the amount of crime in 
 Kansas are furnished in the Attorney General's 
 Report, though not as full as could be desired. 
 The figures are given for the following years only, 
 namely, 1874, 1880, 1881, 1887. By these it 
 appears that the increase in the number of com- 
 mitments from 1874 to 1880 was a steady one, rising 
 from 169 to 291. In 1881, the first year of Pro- 
 hibition, the number fell at once from 291 to 184. 
 In 1885 it had again reached the figure for 1880, 
 and in 1887 the number was 351. Comparing 
 these figures with the population, we have : 
 
128 THE RESULTS IN KANSAS. 
 
 License J 1874 one commitment for 3,132 of population. 
 
 6 yrs. t 1880 one commitment for 3,423 of population. 
 
 Prohibi- $ 1881 one commitment for 5,709 of population. 
 
 tionG yrs. ( 1887 one commitment for 4,090 of population. 
 
 These figures do not show the amount of crime 
 since the passage of the Murray law in 1887. Com- 
 menting on the condition of things as shown by 
 the criminal statistics, the Attorney General 
 says (p. 8 :) " Prohibition is here to stay : it is a 
 " fixed fact. It is indelibly stamped upon our sta- 
 " tute book. A vote of the people would never 
 " erase it. For the good it has done and will do, 
 " it ought never to be erased. It is depopulating 
 "our Penitentiary and reducing pauperism and 
 "crime to the minimum." And again (p. 9) he 
 adds : " The saloon has been banished from Kan- 
 " sas soil and already the result can be appreciated. 
 " The average age of those convicted of crime and 
 " sent to the Penitentiary, in Kansas, has increased, 
 "a proof conclusive that the boys of to-day in 
 "this State are not inmates of these dens of 
 " infamy and schools of crime. The county jails 
 " throughout the State are comparatively empty, 
 " and the number of convicts in the Penitentiary 
 "is growing less." This decrease of crime it 
 must be remembered, has occurred during a 
 remarkable increase of population, amounting to 
 more than fifty per cent, in the last eight years. 
 
 Of course, in weighing the words of State offi- 
 cials in reference to the condition of things in 
 their own State, some allowance is naturally made 
 fat a laudable State pride which may cause their. 
 
THE RESULTS IN KANSAS. 129 
 
 to see things in a little more roseate light than 
 might appear to a more impartial observer. But 
 State pride is not likely to affect official statistics. 
 In 1887 (July 12th,) the Governor of Kansas, 
 John A. Martin, sent to the Associated Press an 
 elaborate statement of the results of Prohibition 
 in Kansas, in response to certain reports about 
 Atchison. The statement (published in full in 
 Appendix, note E.) reviews at considerable length 
 the effects of the law on the material prosperity of 
 the State, summing up these results as follows : 
 u The most wonderful era of prosperity, of 
 material, moral, and intellectual development, of 
 growth in country, cities and towns, ever wit- 
 nessed on the American Continent, has been 
 illustrated in Kansas during the six years since 
 the temperance amendment to our Constitution 
 was adopted, and especially during the past two 
 years, the period of its most energetic and com- 
 plete enforcement." 
 
 Governor Martin's letter may gain added sig- 
 nificance in the minds of many, from the fact that 
 prior to the adoption of the prohibitory amend- 
 ment, he was not known as an advocate of it, and 
 was currently reported to disbelieve in the wisdom 
 of its adoption. Whether his changed attitude is 
 attributed to the force of facts or to the force of 
 public opinion, it is perhaps equally significant of 
 the hold which the policy of Prohibition has 
 gained, after six years' trial, on the people of that 
 State. 
 
 9 
 
130 THE RESULTS IN IOWA. 
 
 In the year 1886, the Chicago News (Independ- 
 ent) sent to the Probate Judge of each county in 
 Kansas an inquiry in regard to the effects of Pro- 
 hibition. Replies were received from forty-nine 
 counties, and published in The News December 15, 
 1886. In five counties, the report was that there 
 had been no reduction in the number of saloons ; 
 in seven, the number was reported to have been 
 somewhat reduced ; in twenty-five, the report was 
 that every saloon had been closed. In two count- 
 ies the report was, no decrease in crime ; in seven, 
 a moderate decrease ; in twenty-four, a most 
 decided decrease. In seven counties, the report 
 was that drinking had not been diminished ; in 
 nine, that there had been somewhat of a reduc- 
 tion, and in twenty-two, that there had been a 
 very decided reduction. 
 
 5. The Results in Iowa. 
 
 A prohibitory amendment to the State Consti- 
 tution was submitted to the voters of Iowa June 
 27, 1882, and adopted by a majority of 29,759. 
 Because of a technical oversight made by the 
 engrossing clerk, the State Supreme Court decided 
 that the question had not been properly submit- 
 ted by the Legislature, and the adoption of the 
 amendment was declared null and void. In 
 1884, however, the Legislature enacted statutory 
 Prohibition for the entire State, which has re- 
 mained in force ever since, a period of but lit- 
 tle more than four years. The large foreign pop- 
 
THE RESULTS IN IOWA. 131 
 
 nlation in Iowa has rendered the enforcement of 
 the law more difficult than in Kansas, and it was 
 not until the Clark law was passed, in 1886, giv- 
 ing citizens the right to bring action against 
 saloons as common nuisances, that the power of 
 the law seems to have been exerted. 
 
 Examination of the Internal Revenue Reports 
 shows the following figures for Iowa : 
 
 ! Retail dealers in distilled liquors 5001 
 Retail dealersin malt liquors 283 
 
 Total 5284 one for 322 population. 
 
 Retail dealers in distilled liquors 3989 
 
 1884 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 216 
 
 Total 4205 one for 410 population. 
 
 ! Retail dealers in distilled liquors ,...3"49 
 Retail dealers in malt liquors 229 
 
 Total 3778 one for464 population. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors 3769 
 
 1886 < Retail dealers in malt liquors 152 
 
 Total 3921 one for 451 population. 
 
 ( Retail dealers in distilled liquors 3584 
 
 1887 I Retail dealers in malt liquors 283 
 
 Total 3867 one for 461 population. 
 
 ! Retail dealers in distilled liquors 2928 
 Retail dealersin malt liquors 249 
 
 Total 3177 one for 566 population. 
 
 This indicates a reduction, in the fifth year of 
 Prohibition, of nearly one-third, in the propor- 
 tionate number of liquor dealers. 
 
 The Internal Revenue Reports show the follow- 
 ing production of liquor in Iowa : 
 
 ( Distilled liquors.... 3,501,151 gallons. 
 
 1884 \ Malt liquors 7,397,748 gallons. 
 
 Tota] 10,898,902 gallons. 
 
 {Distilled liquors 3.903.342 gallons. 
 Malt liquors 5,252,808 gallons. 
 
 Total " 9,246,150 gallons. 
 
132 THE RESULTS IN IOWA. 
 
 Distilled liquors ,. 2,396,007 gallons. 
 
 Malt liquors 6,059,167 gallons. 
 
 Total..". .. ~~ ~ 8,455,174 gallons. 
 
 ( Distilled liquors 2,036,774 gallons. 
 
 1887 < Malt liquors 5,832,619 gallons. 
 
 Total 7,869,393 gallons. 
 
 ( Distilled liquors 706 gallons. 
 
 1888 j Malt liquors 4,968,432 gallons. 
 
 Total 4,969,138 gallons. 
 
 A reduction is here shown of more than one- 
 half in the amount of liquor produced, the dis- 
 tilleries having almost entirely closed operations. 
 A large number of breweries continued to fight 
 the law until the Supreme Court decision rendered 
 in December, 1887. As the fiscal year ends June 
 30, it is probable that most of the liquor reported 
 as produced in 1888 was produced in the five 
 months preceding that decision. 
 
 The criminal records of the State, as reported 
 at the office of the Secretary of State by the Dis- 
 trict and County Attorneys, show a marked decrease 
 in the last two years, since the passage of the 
 Clark law. The figures are as follows, the pro- 
 portion of convictions to population being esti- 
 mated from the United States Census of 1880, 
 and the State Census of 1885 : 
 
 1882 number convictions, 1470 one for 1140 population. 
 1883 number convictions, 1377 one for 1236 population. 
 1881 number convictions, 1592 one for 1085 population. 
 1885 number convictions, 1339 one for 1310 population. 
 1886 number convictions, 1645 one for 1075 population. 
 1887 number convictions, 1520 one for 1174 population. 
 1888 number convictions, *838 one for 2148 population. 
 
 This is for but ten months of the year, but includes in that period 
 the terms of court. 
 
 Governor Larrabee, in his message to the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, January 1, 1888, speaks of a 
 
THE KESULTS IN RHODE ISLAND. 133 
 
 marked decrease, during the preceding year, in 
 
 the number of commitments to the Penitentiary, 
 
 in the following words : 
 
 " The enforcement of the prohibitory law has been 
 so efficient in reducing crime, and consequently 
 diminishing the business of the courts, that I 
 recommend a consolidation of districts, so as to 
 reduce the number of judges from forty to 
 thirty-four, as I am satisfied it can be done with- 
 out much inconvenience to the service, and will 
 be a saving financially. * * During the last 
 year, and especially during its latter half, there 
 has been a decided falling off in Penitentiary con- 
 victs and a very large number of county jails 
 have been empty, some of them for the first 
 time in years." 
 
 6. The Results in Rhode Island. 
 
 The prohibitory amendment to the Constitution 
 of Rhode Island was adopted April 7, 1886, by a 
 vote of 15,113 to 9,230. Enforcing legislation 
 was enacted the following month, and a Special 
 State Police was constituted to carry out its pro- 
 visions. In Rhode Island, however, the injunc- 
 tion clause, which has given to prohibitory law in 
 Kansas and Iowa the greater part of its efficiency, 
 and without which the law proved a comparative 
 failure, has never been enacted. A vigorous 
 attempt was made by the friends of the law in 
 1888 to secure such a clause, but the Legislature 
 refused to pass it, and the law has been of late, in 
 
134 THE RESULTS IN RHODE ISLAND. 
 
 consequence of this omission, openly defied in 
 Providence and other cities. 
 
 The Internal Revenue Reports show, however, a 
 decrease in the number of retail dealers during 
 the first year, as follows : 
 
 {Retail dealers in distilled liquor 1425 
 Retail malt ' 62 
 Total, 1487 one for 204 pop. 
 
 fRetail dealers in distilled liquor 1136 
 
 1887 J Retail malt 59 
 
 I Total, 1195 one for 254 pop. 
 
 The following year, 1888, Rhode Island was 
 consolidated with Connecticut in the same Internal 
 Revenue District, and the figures for it alone are 
 not given. 
 
 The criminal statistics for Providence, the largest 
 city of Rhode Island, showed a marked decrease of 
 crime during the ^ear following the enactment of 
 the law, as follows : 
 
 fTotal arrests for all causes 
 
 Year ending I except for sale of liquor 6473 
 
 June 30, 1886] For drunkenness, common 
 
 L drunkards, and disorderly 2617 
 
 {Total arrests for al) causes 
 except for sale of liquor 4087 
 For drunkenness, common 
 drunkards, and disorderly 1521 
 
 Showing a decrease, in the first year of Pro- 
 hibition, of thirty-seven per cent., in the crime of 
 all kinds, and a decrease in arrests for drunken- 
 ness of forty-two per cent. This decrease has 
 not, however, continued during the year 1888. 
 During the twelve months ending December 31, 
 1888, the arrests for drunkenness and disorderly 
 conduct numbered 4140 to 3772 for the correspond- 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF THE LIQUOR DEALERS. 135 
 
 ing twelve months of 1887, and 4535 for the cor- 
 responding months of 1886. 
 
 7- The Attitude of the Liquor Dealers. 
 
 Such are the results of Prohibition, in so far 
 as they can be shown by statistics and by the testi- 
 monies of public men. A few considerations more 
 general in their nature may perhaps assist one 
 in coming to a fixed conclusion regarding the 
 policy. 
 
 One of these considerations lies in the fact that 
 those who have been known as the foremost 
 advocates of total abstinence remain, with rare ex- 
 ceptions, strongly, almost violently perhaps, in 
 favor of prohibitory law, and those whose business 
 and political interests are identified with the liquor 
 traffic are almost if not altogether unanimous in 
 opposition to the policy. The special significance 
 of this is in its bearing on the question, What 
 have been the actual results of the policy? If 
 Prohibition had proved a failure, then one might 
 naturally have looked for these two parties to 
 have reversed their attitude, and to find the liquor 
 dealers covertly if not openly favoring the law, and 
 the temperance leaders flinging it aside. 
 
 It is conceivable of course that even after a law 
 has proved a failure, those who have championed 
 it may still refuse to believe ill of it. But it is 
 difficult to conceive that those whose interests are 
 bound up in the liquor traffic should continue to 
 manifest such strenuous and costly opposition to 
 
136 THE ATTITUDE OF THE LIQUOR DEALERS. 
 
 prohibitory law if it had failed of its effects. It is 
 at least a very strong presumption in favor of the 
 success of the law, that the hostility of the liquor 
 dealers to it has deepened steadily, until all 
 organizations formed by them and all trade 
 journals published in their interests are combined 
 in a determined assault upon the law. 
 
 This fact, itself, admits of no doubt. The tw.o 
 most powerful organizations of liquor dealers are, 
 among distillers, the National Protective Associa- 
 tion, and, among brewers, the United States 
 Brewers' Association. The former of these was 
 organized in 1886 expressly to check the spread of 
 prohibitory law. This was the purpose stated in 
 the call first issued for such an organization 
 (October 18, 1886) and the resolutions adopted 
 pledge the members " as unalterably opposed to 
 "Prohibition, general or local," and declare their 
 purpose to "endorse the license system.'' 
 
 Their opposition was not limited to words. 
 Graded assessments were levied on all the members, 
 varying from twenty-five to five hundred dollars. 
 Many thousands of dollars have been appropriated 
 to defeat the adoption of prohibitory laws in the 
 last three years. The United States Brewers 
 Association has been equally emphatic and almost 
 equally active in its opposition to prohibitory 
 laws. The attitude of these two representative 
 organizations is followed closely by State and 
 local organizations throughout the land. In fact 
 there is no difference of opinion on this subject 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF THE LIQUOR DEALERS. 137 
 
 among the leaders or the journals published in the 
 interests of the liquor trade. It is almost im- 
 possible to find one of these journals that does not 
 exhibit signs of agitation over the growth of Pro- 
 hibition or signs of*jubilation when finding what it 
 considers indications of a decline. " Heed the les- 
 son of the day," is the advice given in a little 
 hand-book recently published by the attorney of the 
 Cincinnati Liquor and Malt Dealers' Union, who 
 continues: "The author of this little work does 
 " not wish to appear in your eyes as an alarmist, 
 "but he does wish to call the attention of the 
 " liquor trade to the strides made by Prohibition 
 " in various States, and the support sumptuary 
 "laws are receiving from the courts, State and 
 "Federal. * * * Brewers, distillers, wholesale 
 " and retail dealers all men engaged in the 
 " traffic stop your jealousies and petty quarrels. 
 " You are on the eve of a great battle." It 
 is not, indeed, too much to say that the concen- 
 tration of effort at present among the liquor deal- 
 ers, in their organized relations, is to check the 
 growth of prohibitory legislation. 
 
 Placing this fact alongside the other fact, that 
 every total abstinence organization of any promi- 
 nence in the country, with the single exception of 
 the Father Mathew Total Abstinence Union 
 (Roman Catholic), has declared for Prohibition, 
 and is most strenuous in the declaration in those 
 very States in which -the law is in force. It is true 
 that some very highly esteemed leaders of opinion, 
 
138 LEGAL AND MOKAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 
 
 who are regarded as earnest foes of intemperance, 
 openly antagonize the prohibitory policy ; but such 
 as these are not found in States where, as in 
 Maine, Kansas, and Iowa, the actual operations of 
 the law are seen and felt. In these three States 
 especially, every temperance organization and 
 almost every Church denomination stands by the 
 law as one whose effects are of great value to the 
 moral and industrial interests of the community. 
 
 8. Legal and Moral Results of Prohibition. 
 
 The reason for the tenacity with which temper 
 ance men and women cling to prohibitory law even 
 when it is not well enforced, and the unanimity 
 with which it is opposed by the liquor dealers, may 
 be found in two effects which invariably attend 
 the passage of the law. These may be termed the 
 effect legal, and the effect moral. 
 
 The effect legal consists in this, that a prohibi- 
 tory law, as soon as it goes upon the statute-books, 
 removes from the traffic all claim to the protection 
 of the courts. It has become at once an outlaw, 
 and has no right to appeal to the courts to enforce 
 the payment of debts made for purposes of the traf- 
 fic. Under prohibitory law and the enactments usu- 
 ally accompanying it, liquor (except for certain spe- 
 cific purposes) is deprived of its property rights, 
 and is at the mercy of the public or its officials. 
 And when, as in Kansas, Iowa, and Maine, any 
 citizen is given the right, under the injunction 
 law, to institute proceedings for the abatement of 
 
LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 139 
 
 the saloon, the brewery, or the distillery as a nui- 
 sance, the basis upon which the traffic stands be- 
 comes one of the utmost uncertainty. 
 
 Even though the law is not enforced, the busi- 
 ness becomes so uncertain in its rights, that in- 
 stead, as now, of being one of the most attractive 
 to capital, it is likely to become one of the most 
 repellant. The expansion of the traffic is now 
 due almost entirely to the wholesale dealers, dis- 
 tillers, and brewers, who, with capital to invest, 
 are continually establishing new saloons, taking a 
 mortgage on the fixtures and suppplying the 
 stock on credit. Anything that checks this flow 
 of capital into the business, by depriving it, when 
 so invested, of all claim on the protection of the 
 courts, is sure to strike a heavy blow at the busi- 
 ness. This a prohibitory law invariably does. 
 
 It is this outlawing that seems to be most dreaded 
 by the liquor dealers. The leading distiller of 
 Nebraska, in a confidential letter written January 
 7, 1888, in reply to questions coming, as he sup- 
 posed, from a liquor dealer in New York, said 
 among other things : 
 
 "We have had a great deal of business in the 
 State of Iowa, both before it was Prohibition 
 and since, and we can say positively there is 
 very little satisfaction in doing business in that 
 State now. Ever so often the goods are seized 
 and it causes a great deal of delay and trouble 
 to get them released ; and there is a fear of not 
 getting money for the goods, and all the forms 
 
140 LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 
 
 we have to go through make it very annoying 
 business. It is like running a railroad under 
 ground. You don't know where you are going 
 or what is ahead." Letter from P. E. Her of 
 Omaha. 
 
 The question is often asked whether it would be 
 possible to enforce a prohibitory law in such a 
 city as New York or Chicago. Those who ask 
 this, in an incredulous tone, fail to consider fully 
 the importance to any business of its legal stand- 
 ing, and particularly if it be a business done to a 
 great extent on a credit basis. Even with every 
 official in connivance with the traffic, and not a 
 hand lifted for enforcement of the law, a prohibi- 
 tory enactment is still certain to have an immediate 
 and damaging effect on the business and on the 
 flow of capital into it. 
 
 Two instances, one in Kansas and one in Iowa, 
 are sufficient to illustrate this. In Topeka, the 
 capital of Kansas, the saloons continued open for 
 four years after the enactment of the law. But 
 almost in a single hour came the death-blow of 
 the traffic in the determined action of Judge 
 Martin, who charged the Grand Jury to bring in 
 indictments not only against the liquor sellers but 
 againt the owner of buildings in which the liquor 
 was sold. Twenty men, so it was asserted at the 
 time, left the city on the night train to avoid 
 arrest, and the next morning but two saloons 
 could be found open in the city. From that day, 
 
LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 141 
 
 almost, the traffic became a thing of the past in 
 Topeka. 
 
 In Sioux City, Iowa, the law had been openly 
 defied, no effort at concealment even being made. 
 The officials of the city and the entire secular press 
 upheld this defiance of the law and opposed any 
 effort to enforce it. The public sentiment of the 
 city, that portion at least which found expression, 
 was in sympathy with the violators of law, and a 
 public request was made, signed by a large 
 number of the representative business men, that 
 no attempt be made to disturb the existing con- 
 dition of things. Yet with such an unfavorable 
 state of things, a mere handful of determined men 
 and women, with Rev. George C. Haddock at 
 their head, and with the injunction law of the 
 State behind them, began proceedings, and, in 
 spite of public sentiment and official opposition, 
 soon wrought terror to the entire traffic in that 
 city. It was as much in desperation as in hate, 
 that the assault was made by saloon keepers on 
 Mr. Haddock, resulting in his murder. But the 
 proceedings still went on and resulted in closing 
 every saloon in Sioux City. 
 
 It has been sometimes urged that the repeal of 
 license Jaws, arid the absence of all special legis- 
 lation, would leave the saloon open to prosecution 
 as a common nuisance. In that event, however, 
 the nuisance in each case would have to be 
 proven : the mere sale of liquor would not neces- 
 sarily constitute a nuisance. But under prohibi- 
 
142 LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 
 
 tory laws such as prevail in Mdine, Kansas and 
 Iowa, the sale of liquor, or its manufacture, is 
 held by the Legislature to coustitute a nuisance, 
 and the validity of such laws has been affirmed by 
 the Supreme Court of the Nation. 
 
 Herein lies the crowning merit of prohibitory law, 
 in that it makes it possible, under the nuisance 
 clause, to fight the saloons one at a time. 
 
 Under a license law the saloons of a State stand 
 together, organized and legalized. To make any 
 changes in the law for the purpose of restriction, 
 it becomes necessary to contend against the 
 moneyed and political power of the traffic in the 
 entire State. To strike one saloon effectually, 
 one must strike all, under present conditions. A 
 prohibitory law, once obtained, with the injunc- 
 tion clause added, changes this condition of 
 things, and makes it possible to fight one saloon 
 at a time. 
 
 A series of events transpiring in the city of 
 Brooklyn illustrate present conditions. An Excise 
 League was formed in that city a few years ago, 
 whose object was to secure the enforcement of 
 laws already on the statute books of the State. 
 The League was non-partisan, had large resources 
 behind it, and public sentiment as well. It prose- 
 cuted the saloons, one at a time, for violations of 
 the excise laws forbidding sales on Sunday and 
 to minors. In ninety-four successive cases in 
 the first year, the evidence of violation was com- 
 plete and the license was revoked ; but in each 
 
^.EGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 143 
 
 case a new license was issued at once, frequently 
 within twenty-four hours, by the Excise Board, 
 and not one of the ninety-four saloons was 
 actually closed. The political power of the three 
 thousand organized saloons of the city was 
 undoubtedly the reason for this travesty of law. 
 
 The League soon found that in striking one 
 saloon they were striking the three thousand 
 saloons, and accepting the necessity, great pub- 
 lic mass-meetings were held, and thousands of 
 dollars were contributed, and such orators as 
 Henry Ward Beecher, Dr. Howard Crosby, and 
 Dr. McGlynn aroused the sentiment of the city 
 against any increase in the number of saloons. 
 Again a seeming triumph was secured. The next 
 applicant for a license, in a prominent part of 
 the city, was refused by the Excise Board. But 
 this triumph also was short lived. Resort was had 
 to the State Legislature, and through the political 
 power of the thirty thousand saloons of the State, 
 the mandamus law was secured, giving applicants 
 for license the right to appeal to the courts when 
 license was refused. The result was that the new 
 saloon was soon open in Brooklyn, and has remained 
 open ever since. The League learned then that 
 to strike at one saloon meant to strike at the 
 thirty thousand saloons of the State ; had they 
 carried the contest that far, they might have 
 found that they were compelled to fight the two 
 hundred thousand saloons of the Nation. 
 
 The god Thor, when visiting the country of the 
 
144 LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 
 
 giants, to compete with them in feats of strength, 
 was given the task of lifting from the floor what 
 seemed to be nothing but a large cat. The exer- 
 tion of all his strength, however, was inadequate. 
 Afterward, when the spell was removed from his 
 eyes, so runs the old myth, he perceived that what 
 seemed to be a cat was a huge serpent coiled 
 around the globe. Those who have undertaken 
 the task of closing one saloon, or preventing the 
 grant of a license, have frequently had a some- 
 what similar revelation. 
 
 The other effect referred to, the effect moral 
 of prohibitory law, is derived from the educative 
 power of all law. " Law and government," says 
 Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, ic are the sovereign influ- 
 "ences in human society. * * * What they sanc- 
 " tion will ever be generally considered innocent, 
 " what they condemn is thereby made a crime." 
 This, of course, is not true of the more enlight- 
 ened, who form their moral standards not to accord 
 with the laws of men but with the laws of God. 
 But undoubtedly it is true that with a large major- 
 ity, conduct which the law approves is looked upon 
 as right, even though the corollary of this may not 
 always be true, namely, that conduct which the 
 law disapproves is looked upon as wrong. The 
 law is still a school-master, educating upward or 
 downward as the case may be. 
 
 Whether or not a license law is immoral, is a 
 question that has led to some heated argument. 
 To a certain extent it is a question of definitions. 
 
LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 145 
 
 The intent of a license law was, doubtless, in the 
 first place, to check the evils of intemperance and 
 restrict the traffic in liquor within certain limits. 
 To that extent it was what Dr. Lyman Abbott 
 calls it, " a stigma," but a stigma not on the traf- 
 fic conducted within those limits set by the law, 
 but that conducted outside those limits. The ef- 
 fect of a license is two-fold, to stigmatize the un- 
 licensed traffic and to authorize that which is 
 licensed. It draws certain lines outside of which 
 the saloon is to be condemned ; but within which 
 it is to be authorized and protected by law. 
 
 The ordinary saloon, as it exists to-day, is with- 
 in the license limits and receives the shelter which 
 license gives. The license may not be in logic or 
 law, a sanction, but it is a permission ; its very 
 wording indicates this. And the actual effects 
 which result from it are the same as those of a 
 sanction. What the average man perceives in a 
 license, hanging on the wall of the saloon, is an 
 official document giving to that business a specific 
 permission and a pledge of protection. It says, 
 in effect, that the business is one that requires 
 a special fitness in the one conducting it, and 
 that the person holding the license has that special 
 fitness. It is not only an authorization of the 
 business, but a certificate of character for the 
 proprietor, such as the butcher, the baker, the gro- 
 cer, does not possess. Call in question the right 
 of the saloon-keeper to conduct his business, and 
 he points to his license, for which he has paid, 
 10 
 
146 LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 
 
 The State or county has given him specific author- 
 ity to do this very thing ; who are you to tell him 
 he has no right to do it ? 
 
 So far from the license being a stigma, then, on 
 the man who holds it, it is, in effect, rather a 
 commission from the Government, constituting him, 
 in the eyes of the masses, a sort of governmental 
 agent one who is in closer relations to the au- 
 thorities than the ordinary tradesman. It thus 
 confers 011 him, in effect, a dignity rather than an 
 odium. To sell without a license that is wrong : 
 to sell with a license that is all right, for does not 
 the Government expresslv authorize one to do 
 this? Such is the short ana quick reasoning of 
 those on whom the burdens of intemperance come 
 with the most crushing weight, and who have the 
 least resources, either in mind, education, or sur- 
 roundings, for resisting its influences. 
 
 A prohibitory law changes this ; its moral effect, 
 just so far as it goes, is the reverse of this. It 
 declares the ordinary sale of liquor to be a crime, 
 and authorizes no one to carry it on. Whoever 
 does so, does it in defiance of law, and can no 
 longer point to the decrees of the State as a de- 
 fense for his business, and a declaration of its 
 necessity. " If men will engage in this destructive 
 "traffic," said Senator Frelinghuysen, "if they 
 " will stoop to degrade their reason and reap the 
 " wages of iniquity, let them no longer have the 
 " law-book as a pillow, nor quiet conscience with 
 " the opiate of a* court license." 
 
LEGAL AND MORAL RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. 147 
 
 It can be readily explained now why, even in 
 localities where a prohibitory law is very lightly en- 
 forced, its repeal is still resisted so vigorously by 
 those known as temperance leaders, and sought so 
 constantly by the liquor dealers. Attention was 
 called in preceding pages to the uniform testimony 
 given in Maine to the Canadian Commission, in re- 
 gard to certain beneficial results that accompanied 
 the law even when not enforced. These were the 
 result of these two effects which have been spoken 
 of as the effect legal and the effect moral of the 
 law. It may not be enforced to-day, but it may 
 be to-morrow or next week who can tell? A 
 sudden swirl of politics, a sudden accident leading 
 to an uprising of sentiment, a determined on- 
 slaught by a few men or women, the sudden im- 
 pulse of an official, any of these or a hundred 
 other events may lead to the enforcement of the 
 law and to a total loss of the capital invested 
 in the business. Investments made in it to-day 
 may be worthless next year ; it has no assurance 
 of stability. It comes to be at the mercy of public 
 officials, and, under the injunction law, at the 
 mercy even of private citizens. In short, the 
 backbone of the business is gone and its reputabil- 
 ity is vanished. 
 
 Yet saying this, it becomes at the same time 
 necessary to recognize certain evil results attend- 
 ing any unenforced law. It is certain (and this 
 applies with at least equal force to the restrictive 
 provisions of license laws) that a law flagrantly 
 
148 THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 
 
 and continually defied, brings not only itself but 
 other law into discredit. The " majesty of the law " 
 suffers detriment in all points where it is flouted 
 at any one point. Premature Prohibition, that 
 which is obtained before there is reasonable pros- 
 pect of its steady enforcement, is certain to dis- 
 credit itself, and is likely, in spite of the damage, 
 felt rather than seen, which it inflicts on the traf- 
 fic, to turn many of its friends into opponents. 
 
 It becomes important, therefore, to consider the 
 reasons for the frequent non-enforcement of the 
 law. In general these reasons will be found to 
 have been : 
 
 1. A lack of public sentiment ; that is, a senti- 
 ment that is not only strong enough to enact the 
 law, but peremptory enough to demand its enforce- 
 ment, and so organized and united that it can 
 compel compliance. 
 
 2. Official hostility to the law, generally arising 
 either from personal antipathy to it, or from dread 
 of the political power of its opponents. 
 
 3. The easy importation of liquor into a prohib- 
 itory State from bordering States which are not 
 prohibitory. 
 
 The first two of these reasons will be considered 
 in the discussion of the party question. The 
 third reason brings us face to face with the subject 
 of National Prohibiton. 
 
 9. The Demand for National Prohibition. 
 
 The American system of Government p.ndeav- 
 
THE DEMAND FOJ NATIONAL PKOHIBITION. 149 
 
 ors to carry the theory of autonomy to the farth- 
 est extent compatible with public safety. Each 
 community takes care of the things of itself. 
 The care of highways', the public provisions for 
 fire, the punishment of such misdemeanors as fast 
 driving, obstructing the side walks, letting animals 
 run at large, and similar matters local in their 
 bearing, are relegated to the township, the city, or 
 the county. Affairs of wider import, such as 
 regulations for railroads and canals, laws for cor- 
 porations, penalties for crime, even laws of mar- 
 riage and divorce, are with comparatively few res- 
 ervations on the part of the National Government, 
 left to each State to determine for itself. Still 
 wider-reaching affairs, such as the coinage, laws of 
 extradition, treaties with foreign powers, postal 
 regulations, the banking system, and inter-State 
 commerce, come within the province of National 
 legislation. 
 
 Under this system, all those powers known as 
 " police powers," are retained by the State. 
 " State legislation," says the United States 
 Supreme Court, " strictly and legitimately for 
 "police purposes, does not intrench upon any 
 44 authority which has been confided, expressly or 
 " by implication, to the National Government." 
 (Patterson vs. Kentucky, A. T. U. 8. 501). 
 " That [police] power belonged to the States 
 " when the Federal Constitution was adopted. 
 " They did not surrender it and they all have it 
 " now. It extends to the entire property and busi- 
 
150 THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 
 
 "ness within their local jurisdiction." (Fertiliz- 
 ing Co., vs. Hyde Park, A. T. U. 8., 659,667). 
 This disposition of authority, by which the police 
 power, subject to certain conditions which are 
 imposed to prevent the impairment of contracts 
 and the depriving a citizen of property without 
 " due process of law," can not be altered by Con- 
 gress. " The courts must obey the Constitution 
 rather than the law-making department of Gov- 
 ernment," and only by an amendment to the Fed- 
 eral Constitution can a State be deprived of those 
 police powers which were reserved to it in the 
 institution of the National Government. Inas- 
 much as laws regulating, restraining, or prohibit- 
 ing the manufacture and sale of liquor are for the 
 most part adjudged by the courts to be exercises 
 of this police power reserved to the States, it fol- 
 lows, of course, that Congress has no right to 
 make such laws for a single State of the Union. 
 Congress can, indeed, levy a tax upon either the 
 manufacture or sale of liquor and make such 
 regulations as may be necessary to secure the pay- 
 ment of the tax; but farther than that it can 
 not go. It has no right, even by unanimous vote, 
 to enact Prohibition for any of the States. 
 
 There are, however, three powers possessed by 
 Congress that are of great importance in their 
 bearing on this subject, namely : 
 
 1. The power to prohibit the manufacture and 
 sale of liquor in the territories, in the District of 
 
THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 151 
 
 Columbia, and in all forts, arsenals and military 
 posts under Federal control. 
 
 2. The power over the importation of liquor 
 from abroad. 
 
 3. The power over inter-state commerce. 
 Under the first of these (Article iv. Section 3, 
 
 U. S. Constitution) Congress has the sole right 
 (delegating it as it sees fit to the territorial legis- 
 latures) to regulate or prohibit the traffic over an 
 area of more than one and one-half millions of 
 square miles, and among a population equal to the 
 aggregate population of Maine, Vermont, New 
 Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Colorado. Six of 
 these territories are already, at the time of this 
 writing, knocking for admission into the Union,* 
 and Congress has power to prescribe conditions on 
 which they shall become States. The non-exten- 
 sion of slavery into new States was the entering 
 wedge which split the Nation into two hostile 
 camps in 1861 ; the same right which Congress 
 had to prevent the extension of slavery into new 
 States, it has now to prevent the extension of the 
 liquor traffic into new States, should it choose to 
 exercise the right. 
 
 The right to regulate importations from abroad 
 (Article i. Section 8, U. S. Constitution) is one 
 that can be exercised by the Federal Government 
 alone. The State,, except in a proper exercise of 
 its powers of quarantine, is not only debarred 
 from prohibiting importations from abroad, but 
 
 * Pom- ol these have been admitted since writing the above sentence. 
 
nt 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 152 "THfi-^ETSfAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 
 
 importations from a neighboring State as well. 
 The right of the State over importations from 
 abroad, begins only after the first sale in unbroken 
 packages. (Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 447.) 
 
 The most important power possessed by Con- 
 gress, however, in its relation to the subject under 
 consideration, is the power over inter-state com- 
 merce. (Article i. /Section 8, U. 8. Constitution.) 
 Recent developments, indeed, indicate that on the 
 exercise of this power may depend, to a large 
 extent, the ultimate success of every prohibitory 
 law enacted by the States. 
 
 There is not in Maine, Vermont, or Kansas, a 
 single brewery or distillery in regular operation. 
 The production of liquor has been stopped almost 
 completely in those States, except for the purposes 
 allowed by the law. Whatever liquor is sold in 
 violation of the law is transported from adjoining 
 States, and the State officials have no authority to 
 prevent this. There are in Boston wholesale 
 liquor dealers whose entire business consists in 
 shipments of liquor to agents in Maine. There 
 are in Iowa transportation companies whose busi- 
 ness consists solely in transporting liquor into that 
 State from Missouri. The companies are known 
 to the State officials, known to the public at large, 
 and the nature of their business ig known ; but 
 there is no authority vested in the State to prevent 
 it. To prevent the sale of liquor once within the 
 State is, of course, a work much more difficult than 
 to prevent its entrance had the State the power to do 
 
THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 153 
 
 this. But by the decision of the Supreme Court, 
 March 19, 1888, the right to do this rests with the 
 Federal Government alone. 
 
 That decision (see Appendix, note F.) merits 
 more than a passing notice. The circumstances 
 under which it was rendered are these. There is 
 a clause in the Iowa law forbidding a railroad, or 
 other line of transportation, from bringing liquor 
 into the State unless a permit has first been given 
 by the Auditor of the county to which the liquor 
 is to be shipped. The Chicago and Northwestern 
 Railway, in obedience to this law, refused to trans- 
 port liquor into Iowa for a wholesale house in Illi- 
 nois. Suit was brought bj* the latter, and, the 
 case being carried to the Supreme Court, the 
 decision was given that this clause of the Iowa 
 law was unconstitutional, as it conflicted with the 
 power vested in Congress alone to regulate inter- 
 state commerce. The court conceded the right of 
 the State to prohibit the traffic and the man- 
 ufacture of liquor within its own borders, 
 but added : " The right to prohibit sales, so far 
 " as conceded to the States, arises only after the 
 " act of transportation has terminated." (Bowman 
 Bros, vs Chicago and Northwestern Railway.) This 
 act of transportation, the court very plainly inti- 
 mates, does not cease until after the first sale of 
 the imported article in unbroken packages. A 
 case directly involving this point, however, has 
 already been appealed to the Supreme Court. 
 
 Whatever be the decision regarding the first 
 
154 THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 
 
 sale in unbroken packages, the right to transport 
 liquor into a prohibitory State from any point out- 
 side of that State, is one which Congress alone can 
 destroy. In all the trials of prohibitory law so far 
 made, this has been the chief source of weakness. 
 It is a comparatively easy task for the State of 
 Maine to prevent the manufacture, except in very 
 small quantities, of liquor. The difficulty has 
 been to prevent its sale and distribution after it 
 has been transported from another State. It is 
 not easy to hide a brewery or distillery, or to con- 
 ceal their operations, except on a very limited 
 scale or in the wilds of mountain districts; but 
 when the liquor has been once introduced into a 
 city like Portland, it is a comparatively easy thing 
 to conceal it in quart bottles, or even in kegs and 
 barrels, and distribute it throughout the State 
 in spite of the vigilance of the officers. It is 
 against this great disadvantage, a disadvantage 
 due not to any inherent weakness in the law, but 
 solely to the inaction of Congress that Maine 
 and Vermont have had to contend continually, 
 and against which Iowa and Kansas have now to 
 wage an unceasing fight. 
 
 Out of this condition of things has come the 
 demand for National Prohibition. The question, in 
 view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court 
 just referred to, can no longer be considered 
 merely a State question, since no State can ade- 
 quately protect itself in this matter without the 
 co-operation of the Federal Government. 
 
THE DEMAND FOE NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 155 
 
 There are two ways in which this co-operation 
 might be secured. The more effective way would 
 be, unquestionably, through an amendment to a 
 Federal Constitution, prohibiting the manufac- 
 ture, importation, transportation, or sale of liquor 
 (except for certain specified uses) in the Nation. 
 But there are two serious objections to this as a 
 practical policy. In the first place, to obtain such 
 an amendment requires not only a two-thirds 
 vote of Congress to submit it, but a vote in its 
 favor by three-fourths of the State Legislatures. 
 In the second place, such an amendment, in addi- 
 tion to the strong antagonism it would be certain 
 to arouse on other grounds, would incur strong 
 hostility, especially in the Southern States, as an 
 invasion upon the powers reserved to each State. 
 As has been pointed out, prohibitory law is an 
 exercise of the police powers now belonging to the 
 States. Those powers are among the most import- 
 ant, if not the most important, which the State has 
 reserved to itself. A large proportion of citizens 
 who regard already with jealous alarm what they 
 call the tendency to centralization of power, 
 would without doubt oppose on this ground alone 
 the transference to Congress of powers required 
 to enforce a prohibitory amendment to the Federal 
 Constitution. The necessity of such a course 
 would at least have to be plainly apparent before 
 three-fourths of the State Legislatures could be in- 
 duced to ratify such a procedure. There is, however, 
 a method in which national co-operation can be 
 
156 THE DEMAND FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. 
 
 secured in much less time, and which would be 
 free from these objections. The powers already 
 granted by the Constitution to Congress and the 
 President, if used with vigor and sincerity, would 
 no doubt go very far to remedy the defects of 
 State Prohibition. Those powers have been 
 already indicated. They are sufficient, if ,exer- 
 cised, to prevent the admission of any new States 
 in which the liquor traffic is a legalized business, 
 to prevent the manufacture or sale of liquor in 
 any of the Territories or Federal posts, the 
 importation from abroad, or the transportation 
 from State to State. The exercise of these powers 
 need not be delayed until two-thirds of Congress 
 and three-fourths of the State Legislatures are won 
 to Prohibition ; but only until a majority of Con- 
 gress and the Chief Executive of the Nation are 
 ready heartily to second all efforts made by the 
 States to throw off this traffic. Nor would this 
 course prevent the adoption of a Constitutional 
 amendment later on, if it was found necessary and 
 desirable to endow Congress with more airple 
 powers. 
 
PART III-THE PARTY. 
 
 Is A PROHIBITION PARTY DESIRABLE ? 
 
 "In union there is strength." 
 
 THE keyword in the formation of a political 
 party is UNION. It is a union of political inter- 
 ests, of political beliefs, and, above all, of political 
 purposes, that constitutes a party. Sometimes, 
 indeed, those whose ultimate purposes are radi- 
 cally different may form a temporary coalition, for 
 the accomplishment of an immediate purpose 
 common to both, as was seen a few years ago 
 when the Conservatives and Home Rulers of Eng- 
 land united to unseat the Liberals. But in such 
 cases neither party loses its identity, and when 
 the immediate purpose is accomplished the coali- 
 tion, or fusion, ends. 
 
 But union on some great moral or governmental 
 principle is not enough to constitute a basis for a 
 party. There must be, in addition, union on some 
 plan of action by which that principle is to be car- 
 ried out. Otherwise a party would be but little 
 else than a school of social philosophy. 
 
 The most frequent and natural division of part- 
 ies in a popular government is into Conservatives 
 157 
 
158 THE PARTY. 
 
 and Progressists those who are resisting change 
 and those who are seeking it. But inasmuch as 
 the nature of the change sought by the latter 
 varies from time to time, the basis of party union 
 changes, and with it to a greater or less extent, 
 the constitution of both parties, their methods of 
 action, and their leadership. In constitutional 
 monarchies, such as England and Germany, the 
 Conservative party is, as a rule, the one that 
 upholds the prerogatives of the throne, while its 
 rival seeks to curtail them. This gives to parties 
 in those countries a continuity and stability which 
 they do not have in a Republic such as America 
 or France, though even in constitutional monarch- 
 ies the changes in parties amount sometimes to lit- 
 tle less than a complete reorganization. In Eng- 
 land for instance the lines of division between 
 parties change at times in a most striking manner, 
 when some great agitation, such as the one over 
 the corn-laws a generation ago or the one over 
 Home Rule in the last few years, re-divides voters 
 along new lines of cleavage. 
 
 In America the changes in political parties have 
 been more radical, an old party having on several 
 occasions died outright and a new party having 
 arisen. Yet even here the party that represents, 
 for the most part, the conservative element the 
 Democratic party while it has changed its name 
 twice, has not, from the birth of the Republic, lost 
 its identity of organization. It began, as the 
 anti-Federalist party, by resisting the adoption of 
 
THE PAKTY. 159 
 
 the Constitution, and it has been, generally speak- 
 ing, a party of resistance to change ever since. 
 Nearly every amendment to the Constitution, 
 every increase of Federal authority, and almost 
 every marked departure or development in 
 National polity (such as the protective tariff, the 
 alien and sedition laws, the national banking sys- 
 tem, the abolition of slav-ery, the reconstruction 
 measures, the policy of internal improvements by 
 the Federal government, the resumption of specie 
 payment) has been resisted by the same party. 
 In all this, the party has been on the conservative 
 side, and has been true to its first traditions of 
 resistance to the enlargement of Federal powers. 
 It has been different with the parties that rep- 
 resented the progressive elements of the nation. 
 They have not been mere continuations one of 
 another, under new names, but each has been a 
 new birth, a new organization, characterized by a 
 new name, new leadership frequently, new pur- 
 poses. The old Federalist party died twenty years 
 before the Whig party was born, and the Whig 
 party preserved its organization and identity 
 (though not its name) for two presidential terms 
 after the birth of the Republican party. The rea- 
 son for these new births among parties is an obvi- 
 ous one. A party that has been built up around 
 one common centre as its basis of union can not 
 readily adopt a new and entirely different basis of 
 union without danger of dissolution. It cannot 
 readjust itself when the needs of progress require 
 
160 THE PARTY. 
 
 it. A party, as a man, grows conservative with 
 age. As a matter of fact, the Federalist party 
 perished because it could not or would not longer 
 meet the demands of the progressive elements of 
 the Nation. The Whig party died for the same 
 reason, and there are those who are already pre- 
 dicting the death of the Republican party for its 
 inability to meet the growing demands of the pro- 
 gressive elements of the Nation. In 1854 Horace 
 Greeley, noting this tendency of parties to grow 
 conservative, and their consequent indisposition 
 to give championship to new and important reforms 
 lest their unity should thereby be endangered, 
 advocated in vigorous terms (See N. Y. Tribune, 
 July 18, 1854) the breaking up of parties at least 
 every twelve years, if not at the close of each 
 presidential campaign, and their reformation along 
 the new lines called for by the new issues. 
 
 Has the time come in the progress of the nation, 
 for a new party, and if so, is Prohibition the issue 
 that is to determine the new party's character and 
 dominant purpose? The answer will depend 
 largely upon another question, namely: Whether 
 Prohibition itself demands a new party ? 
 
 One thing may be assumed at the outset of the 
 investigation, and that is that somewhere and 
 somehow the foes of the saloon must effect a 
 union. It must be not merely a union on general 
 purposes, but a union of action as well. All good 
 citizens desire to see intemperance lessened, but 
 until this union of desire develops into union of 
 
THE PARTY. 161 
 
 action, it can accomplish nothing in the way of 
 political results. 
 
 This union must, moreover, be a union at the 
 ballot-box. On this point there will be dissent. 
 The advent of this question into politics has been . 
 deplored by many as an unwise policy. Moral 
 suasion, it is urged, is the proper method for a 
 moral reform such as temperance, and this is un- 
 doubtedly true so far as the drinker is concerned. 
 His appetite can not be changed by statute law, 
 nor his will-power strengthened. Moral suasion, 
 through the home, the Church, the school, and 
 organized societies, may be the preferable way to 
 deal with the man who drinks ; but not so with 
 the saloon. To reach the saloon, to deal with the 
 traffic, the law that is behind it must be reached 
 and the attitude of Government must be changed. 
 But to do this, to change the law in the face of 
 organized political opposition to any such change, 
 requires that there shall be a demand made at the 
 ballot-box. 
 
 For let one stand on a platform or in a pulpit 
 and make his demand for prohibitory law in words 
 however eloquent, and Government pays no heed 
 to the demand and makes no record of the opin- 
 ion expressed. Let the same demand be made 
 through the papers, in conversation, any and every- 
 where, for three hundred and sixty-four days in 
 the year, and the same result follows. It is not 
 that Government is oblivious to the desires of 
 those thus speaking, that no official note is made 
 11 
 
162 THE PARTY. 
 
 of opinions so expressed ; but because there is but 
 one method by which each individual is to register 
 his opinions and desires in regard to matters of 
 public policy. That method is the ballot-box, 
 and every opinion registered there by the private 
 citizen is placed on the records of the State, and 
 none other. 
 
 It is true that in ordinary elections the ballot 
 is cast for men, not directly for measures ; but it 
 is generally understood, of course, that each can- 
 didate is for the most part voted for as the repre- 
 sentative of a certain policy which is embodied in 
 the platform on which he stands or in the purposes 
 of those nominating him. Let a citizen express 
 his opinion in favor of Prohibition every day in 
 the year, and then vote a ballot that represents 
 either silence on this question or opposition to it, 
 and the only record made by Government is the 
 record of this silence or opposition. 
 
 How then shall there be union at the ballot-box 
 of the foes of the saloon ? Three plans for such 
 union have been proposed in addition to the new 
 party plan. They are as follows : 
 
 1. By massing in one of the old parties, and 
 moulding its policy. 
 
 2. By forming a balance-of-power party, which, 
 while making no nominations of its own, shall 
 vote for those candidates on old-party tickets who 
 are best disposed to this reform. 
 
 3. By union in non-partisan organizations for the 
 adoption of Prohibition in a non-partisan election. 
 
CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 163 
 
 .1 Can the Reform be Accomplished Through 
 Either Old Party ? 
 
 The first of these methods is, as a rule, the one 
 first to be adopted by the advocates of a new 
 issue. Whether or not the method succeeds, de- 
 pends entirely on the nature of the issue, and its 
 relation to the basis of union on which the party 
 has been organized and developed. 
 
 To illustrate: The Republican party was 
 formed by a union of the elements opposed to the 
 extension of the slave-power. This was its basis 
 of union. To it came Abraham Lincoln, a pro- 
 tectionist, its second candidate for President, and 
 Hannibal Hamlin, a free-trader, its second candi- 
 date for Vice-President. Men of widely different 
 views were brought into union on this one domi- 
 nant issue, or the one growing immediately out 
 of it namely, the preservation of the Union. 
 Thus formed, the party has been able to meet and 
 cope successfully with all the issues growing out 
 of that first dominant issue that gave it birth. It 
 prosecuted the civil war to a successful close. It 
 took up, one by one, the reconstruction measures 
 without endangering the unity of its organization. 
 It enfranchised the negroes, redeemed the paper 
 currency issued for war purposes, paid the war 
 debts, including huge pension bills, still following 
 the logical course of development from its first 
 position. None of these issues had in it any dan- 
 ger to the party's original basis of union. 
 
 Rut it has reached, of late years, a point where 
 
164 CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 
 
 the new issues presenting themselves are entirely 
 independent of the war and its developments, and 
 it begins to encounter at once the dangers of di- 
 vision in its ranks in meeting such issues. In con- 
 sequence, it has been forced to continue to appeal 
 to its members in behalf of issues long since past 
 and gone. Distrust for the leaders of the South 
 has been kept alive assiduously. Pension bills 
 have been augmented to greater and greater mag- 
 nitude in each session of Congress. The treat- 
 ment of the negro, in his exercise of the franchise 
 in the South, has been carefully held up before 
 the members of the party and made the basis for 
 passionate appeals to their minds and hearts. But 
 not one issue of National magnitude that has 
 grown out of circumstances apart from the war 
 and its results, has the party been able to meet 
 with anything like a united front and a single 
 purpose. Civil Service Reform has been given a 
 half-hearted reception by many of the leaders of 
 the party and has met with open opposition on 
 the part of others. The growth of monopolies 
 and the increase of industrial problems, it has 
 been unable to deal with as a party. The reforms 
 which the tariff confessedly needs, it is unable to 
 make without incurring the imminent risks of 
 party division. And to the increasing demands 
 for legislation that shall check the evils of the sa- 
 loon system, the party has found itself helpless to 
 respond. It is a mistake to suppose that this ina- 
 bility is merely the result of cowardice or lack of 
 
CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 165 
 
 moral sentiment in the party. Neither statement 
 would be. true ; but it is a necessary consequence 
 following from the law of the party's formation, 
 in accordance with which men of all kinds of 
 views and all kinds of interests regarding these 
 new issues, were united on the one issue dominant 
 a generation ago. 
 
 The issue of Prohibition is not one related in 
 any way to the issues that formed the Republican 
 party. The Prohibitionist and the anti-Prohibi- 
 tionist, the total abstainer and the drinker, the 
 clergyman and the bar-keeper, were, in the days of 
 the party's formation, invited and welcomed to its 
 fellowship. One tvas as true a member of the 
 party as the other, provided only that he were as 
 true to the dominant issue. 
 
 But there is a still more formidable difficulty in 
 the way of success in thus appealing for a union 
 of the foes of the saloon in either of the two old 
 parties, and that is in human nature itself, and 
 the laws that govern it in political life. The foes 
 of the saloon have been divided between both old 
 parties. In which of the two can they be induced 
 to unite? 
 
 The analogies of the past give us light here. 
 When the question of slavery was forced to the 
 front in politics, it was done despite the efforts of 
 the leaders in both the parties of that day, be- 
 cause neither party was prepared to meet the 
 issue. That issue found in both parties the 
 friends as well as the foes of slavery. It became 
 
166 CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 
 
 necessary to bring the foes of slavery, somewhere 
 and somehow, into unity of action. Salmon P. 
 Chase was a Democrat ; Charles Surauer was a 
 Whig ; but both were enemies of the institution of 
 slavery. The political union of such as they and 
 their followers, was one of the first steps neces- 
 sary to the success of their desires. Had Mr. 
 Chase insisted that Mr. Sumner and his followers 
 should unite with himself and his followers inside 
 the Democratic party, or had Mr. Sumner insisted 
 that the place of union should be within the Whig 
 party, the probabilities are that they or their fol- 
 lowers, had they lived so long, might have been 
 contending over the matter unto this day. 
 
 Union was brought about in no such way. 
 Neither demanded that, while giving up nothing 
 himself, the other give up all his political associations 
 and turn his back on all his other political beliefs. 
 Instead, each said to the other, in effect : Give up 
 your old party, and I will give up mine. Step 
 down from your old political platform and I will 
 step down from mine. Meet me half-way in a 
 new political organization, formed on this one 
 issue as the dominant and dividing issue, and I 
 will meet you. The result is a matter of histor}^. 
 
 A condition very analogous to this is seen 
 today. The question of Prohibition has been 
 forced to the front despite the efforts of leaders in 
 both old parties to prevent it, because it finds 
 neither of those parties ready to meet it without 
 danger of internal division. It finds the friends 
 
CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 167 
 
 as well as the foes of the saloon in both old 
 parties, and the friends are sufficiently numerous 
 in each to keep the party in a state of inactivity. 
 Somewhere and somehow a union of the foes of the 
 saloon must be effected, and it must be a union not 
 merely in purpose but in action. 
 
 Senator Colquitt and Senator Reagan for 
 instance are avowed advocates of Prohibition. 
 Senator Frye and Senator Blair are equally 
 avowed advocates of Prohibition. But the for- 
 mer two are Democrats, and the latter two 
 Republicans. If they effect a union of their 
 energies and influence in either of the two old 
 parties, two must give up all their political associa- 
 tions and many political beliefs, while the others 
 give up nothing and gain everything. 
 
 In the prohibitory amendment campaigns of 
 1887, two being in Southern States Texas and 
 Tennessee and two in Northern States Michigan 
 and Oregon there were cast 445,383 votes in the 
 aggregate for Prohibition. Of these, 246,774 
 were cast in the two Southern States and 198,609 
 were cast in the two Northern States. A very 
 large proportion of those in the South were cast 
 by Democrats, a large proportion of those in the 
 North by Republicans. Any contemplated union 
 of these voters in either of these two old parties 
 must mean therefore on the one side the sacri- 
 fice of nothing, on the other side the repudiation 
 of political views and associations of a lifetime. 
 For Cither side to make such a demand of the 
 
168 CAN THE REFOKM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 
 
 other is to give the latter a good reason to ques- 
 tion their sincerity of purpose or their sense of 
 justice. 
 
 The claim is made at times by Republicans in 
 the North and by Democrats in the South that a 
 large majority of their party is so strongly in 
 favor of restrictive legislation for the liquor traffic, 
 that whatever laws are found to be needful may 
 be secured in due course of time through their 
 party. This conclusion, however, by no means 
 follows. While it is probably true that in each 
 party, in one of the two sections, the sentiment of 
 the majority is favorable to strong restrictive 
 legislation, it is equally true that in each of these 
 parties there is a large and active minority unfavor- 
 able to such legislation, and who would resent 
 any serious attempt in this direction by immedi- 
 ate withdrawal from the party. It is sufficient, 
 in order to appreciate the force of this, to remem- 
 ber the large German vote in the Republican party, 
 and the large Irish vote in the Democratic party, 
 most of whom would not, at present, tolerate any 
 action by their party in the direction of prohibi- 
 tory law*. This minority is large enough to 
 defeat, by a bolt, either party in all the close 
 States, such as New York, Indiana, Connecticut, 
 New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Ohio ; 
 and defeat in these close States means of course 
 defeat for either party in a National contest. 
 
 * By the Census of 1880 the foreign-born males of voting age num- 
 bered over three millions, about one-third being German and one- 
 third Irish. 
 
CAN THE ROFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 169 
 
 It would be impossible, therefore, for either 
 party to take a determined stand for Prohibition 
 without incurring at least temporary and in all 
 probability continued defeat. The only salvation 
 for a party in that case would be to win over 
 from its rival recruits equal to the number of its 
 desertions. Now it so happens that the temper- 
 ance sentiment that is in the Republican party is, 
 to far the greatest extent, in the North, and that in 
 the Democratic party is in the South. The 
 Republican party, therefore, in the event of its 
 alienating a million or two of its members by an 
 anti-saloon attitude, would have to look to the 
 South for the necessary reinforcements to pre- 
 serve it from continued disaster at the polls, 
 while the Democratic party would be forced to 
 look to the North almost entirely for its reinforce- 
 ments under similar circumstances. To state the 
 case is sufficient to indicate its difficulties. No 
 student of recent American history but knows 
 the strength of the memories and the prejudices 
 that would prevent either party from making its 
 losses good under such conditions. The very ele- 
 ment in the South that is most attached to the 
 cause of Prohibition is the one most inimical 
 to Republican ascendancy, and the element most 
 strongly attached to the same cause in the North 
 is at the same time the element that is, or at least 
 has been, most strongly attached to the Republi- 
 can party. A union of these two elements seems 
 possible, but not in either old party. 
 
170 CAN THE REFORM BE ACCOMPLISHED. 
 
 But has not the Republican party espoused the 
 cause of Prohibition in several of the States 
 already, and can it not, in course of time, do the 
 same in other States without disaster? This ques- 
 tion arises from a misapprehension. There is not 
 one State in the Union in which either the Repub- 
 lican or Democratic party ever espoused the prin- 
 ciple of Prohibition until after it had been adopted 
 by the people and become the established law of 
 the State. In Maine, the basis of union on which 
 the Republican party was first organized included 
 Prohibition and Abolition, but this was in 1854, 
 three years after the adoption of Prohibition by 
 the State. In Kansas and Iowa, even with the 
 overwhelming majorities which that party had in 
 those States a few years ago, it never went so far 
 as to espouse Prohibition. The claim quite fre- 
 quently made that the Republican party gave the 
 law to those States, is without basis of fact. It 
 did, indeed, go so far as to submit to the people, 
 for their decision, a prohibitory amendment in 
 each State, but never placed itself on record in 
 favor of the Amendment. Prohibition was 
 obtained in a non-partisan election in each State, 
 neither party taking any definite attitude, as a 
 party, in regard to it. 
 
 Neither the political conditions of the Nation 
 as they are known to exist, nor the facts of 
 history seem, then, to justify the expectations 
 held to by many that one or the other of the 
 old parties will be developed into a strong anti- 
 
THE BALANCE OF POWER PLAN. 171 
 
 saloon party that shall combine in its ranks the 
 temperance sentiment of the Nation and sweep on 
 to a grand victory. 
 
 2. The Balance of Power Plan. 
 
 The second method of union proposed for the 
 foes of the saloon, is in an independent organiza- 
 tion, a sort of balance-of-power party, whose mem- 
 bers shall refuse to vote for objectionable candi- 
 dates on either old-party ticket, but shall vote for 
 the best candidate irrespective of party affiliations, 
 and where two candidates for the same office are 
 equally trusted on this question, voters shall 
 divide their votes between them according to their 
 individual preferences. 
 
 This plan, it is urged, is the one that is pursued 
 by the liquor dealers, with the result of terroriz- 
 ing both old parties. By this method they have 
 been able largely to dictate nominations. Why 
 can not the temperance voters, by a similar plan, 
 accomplish equal results ? 
 
 The answer is found in this : that such a plan, 
 to succeed, requires that its work be done in secret. 
 
 There must be, in the first place, an organized 
 body of voters who will be willing to act with 
 substantial unity, throwing their vote to this side 
 or that, as their leaders direct, or as, by a majority 
 vote, they themselves decide. This body of voters 
 will consist, ,of course, in o rder to accomplish its 
 purpose, of both Democrats and Republicans, who 
 Will meet together, not to make their own nom- 
 
172 THE BALANCE OF POWER PLAN. 
 
 v 
 
 inations (for that would at once constitute a new 
 and distinct party), but to decide which of two 
 candidates for each office on the old-party tickets 
 they will indorse. This, of course, will be deter- 
 mined by vote. But straightway a formidable 
 objection arises. Those who have been Demo- 
 crats, desirous of securing good nominations from 
 their party, have attended the primaries and per- 
 haps the nominating conventions of their party, 
 and by their participation in these they have 
 bound themselves, as such action is usually inter- 
 preted, to support the nominations made. The 
 Republican members have similarly bound them- 
 selves. How then, being already bound, can 
 they again bind themselves to the decision of a 
 new body of men ? 
 
 The only recourse is to refuse to recognize as 
 binding their participation in the primaries of 
 their party. But if they so refuse, and submit 
 themselves to a new body, and openly refuse to 
 support important nominations made by their own 
 party, at once the doors of future primaries are 
 closed against them, and the bars are up to all 
 political preferment at the hands of their party. 
 The consequence is that all who join such an inde- 
 pendent body of voters, at once, by that act, sever 
 their old-party ties and render themselves unable 
 to participate in the nominations of either old 
 party, while, by the terms on which the new organ- 
 ization was formed, they are yet unable to make 
 nomirations of their own. 
 
THE BALANCE OF POWER PLAN. 173 
 
 With the liquor dealers, it is altogether differ- 
 ent. They do, indeed, attend party primaries, but 
 if the character of the nominations made arouses 
 their resentment, they do not often meet together 
 and formally decide to vote for the other party's 
 candidate. Instead, being a vote that has its 
 " bosses " and follows their instructions, the work 
 is done in secret, and while every one knows what 
 was done, and how, and why, no one, at least none 
 of the "bosses," has endangered his standing in 
 his party. For the temperance voters, therefore, 
 to follow the plan of the liquor dealers requires, 
 first, a following that will obey its " bosses " 
 implicitly, and, second, a readiness to work in 
 secrecy. 
 
 In any such method as this, moreover, there is 
 another great advantage on the side of the liquor 
 dealers, and that is the advantage of party inertia. 
 They are not seeking to reform the party, to 
 change its attitude ; but simply to keep it from 
 making any change, and the force sufficient to do 
 the latter would be altogether insufficient for the 
 former. The vote of the saloon is aptly repre- 
 sented by a boy standing in the middle of a 
 " teeter " who determines, by throwing his weight 
 on one side or the other, which side shall go up or 
 down. There is but one thing to be done, in order 
 to deprive the vote of its present power, and that 
 is to force it from the middle of the political 
 "teeter "and compel it to take one end, while 
 
174 THE BALANCE OF POWER PLAN. 
 
 those opposed to the saloon take the other. Tie 
 issue then can be speedily determined. 
 
 There is still another serious objection that 
 might frequently arise under any such method as 
 the one now being considered. In the larger cities 
 especially, the number of different ballots to be 
 cast by each voter is sometimes as high as nine or 
 ten, and these may contain the names of from 
 twenty to fifty candidates. (In Brooklyn, in the 
 last election 1888 there were eight different 
 ballots to be voted by each voter in one-half the 
 wards, and nine in the other half, beside a consti- 
 tutional amendment ballot.) Now a voter who had 
 determined to vote for none but candidates who 
 were opposed to the saloons, would be left to his 
 own personal knowledge, (unless special ballots 
 were prepared by some organization and distri- 
 buted at every polling place throughout election 
 day) in making out his ballot. His personal 
 knowledge, it is likely, would differ from that of 
 another who might be animated by a similar pur- 
 pose. The names that one might " scratch," the 
 other might vote for, and vice versa. The result 
 would be apparent. Instead of union among this 
 class of voters, their disunion would be the most 
 complete possible, and the ballots they would cast 
 would be as varied as the colors of Joseph's coat. 
 
 The plan for a balance-of-power party, then, on 
 this issue, seems entirely impracticable without 
 a radical revolution in the system of American 
 politics. It is possible only on a small scale, or in 
 
THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 175 
 
 temporary emergencies, on any issue that does 
 not command a following blindly obedient to the 
 behests of its leaders. 
 
 3. The Non-Partisan Plan of Union. 
 
 There remains to be considered, then, the third 
 plan of union of the foes of the saloon, that is, in 
 non-partisan organizations which shall have refer- 
 ence to this one issue alone, and shall have noth- 
 ing to do with the relations of members to political 
 parties, nor attempt to dictate to them the candi- 
 dates for whom they shall vote. This is the plan 
 advocated by Bishop Merrill, Dr. Dorchester, and 
 others, and they point to the non-partisan contests 
 in Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, and elsewhere, as 
 furnishing abundant argument in its favor. 
 
 There can be no question that this method of 
 union is the easiest and the quickest possible. 
 The number of voters who are willing to join in a 
 non-partisan organization of this kind, which does 
 not require them to give up their party affiliations, 
 is many times greater, as shown by the votes in 
 amendment contests, than the number willing to 
 join a new party. The only question to be raised 
 is, not whether such a union is feasible and desir- 
 able, but whether it is sufficient to accomplish 
 what needs to be done. 
 
 There are but two ways in which prohibitory 
 legislation can be enacted into law : one is by direct 
 act of the Legislature, and the other, by an amend- 
 ment to the State Constitution, followed with 
 
176 THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 
 
 enforcing legislation enacted by the Legislature. 
 For a Constitutional amendment of any kind is 
 very rarely of such a nature as to enforce itself. 
 It may forbid certain acts, but it does not provide 
 any penalty for those committing them, nor place 
 upon any certain officials the responsibility for 
 seeing that the law is obeyed, nor make appropria- 
 tions for the necessary outlay in enforcing it. 
 Instead, it leaves all these points to be attended to 
 by the Legislature, and to a great extent the effi- 
 ciency of the amendment is due to the way in 
 which the Legislature performs its duty. 
 
 It is in the adoption of a prohibitory amend- 
 ment that the non-partisan organization comes into 
 play. The question then is submitted to a direct 
 vote of the people. They vote on the question, 
 not indirectly through candidates, but directly, 
 yes or no, on the amendment itself. There is no 
 requirement then for any party organization, and 
 the custom has been at all such times for members 
 of all parties who favor the amendment, to unite 
 irrespective of party lines. 
 
 But it is evident that such a method of union is 
 possible only where a direct vote is taken on the 
 question. For our Government is a representative 
 form of Government. It is only in rare instances 
 that the people legislate directly ; most of their 
 legislation is done by those whom they send to 
 the seats of legislation for that purpose. A pro- 
 hibitory amendment is voted on directly ; but all 
 subsequent enforcing legislation must be obtained 
 
THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 177 
 
 through Legislators, who are elected in the usual 
 way as the candidates of parties. In fact, the 
 opportunity of voting on the amendment itself can 
 be obtained only through the action of the people's 
 representatives. The order of procedure is as 
 follows : (1) The Legislature votes to submit the 
 amendment to a vote of the people ; (2) the 
 voters cast their ballots for or against it ; if it is 
 carried (3) the Legislature proceeds to enact the 
 necessary enforcing laws. 
 
 The prohibitory amendment in Maine, for 
 instance, provides no penalties, does not specify 
 any method of procedure in case any one is found 
 violating the law, in fact does nothing but prohibit 
 the manufacture and sale of liquor, and enjoins on 
 the Legislature and the executive officers the 
 duty of seeing that the Prohibition is carried out. 
 The amendment itself contains just ninety-one 
 words ; the laws enacted for its enforcement con- 
 tain about seven thousand words. On none of 
 these latter have the people voted directly, or in a 
 non-partisan way. All these have been secured 
 through representatives of the people, elected by 
 the usual party action. 
 
 We find, then, on analyzing this non-partisan 
 plan, the following features : 
 
 1. While it is the most desirable plan at the 
 time an amendment is pending, it can not be 
 called into operation either before that period, to 
 secure the submission of an amendment, nor after 
 that period to secure proper enforcing legislation, 
 12 
 
178 THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 
 
 and its vigorous execution. All that it can do after- 
 ward is to petition, unless it is prepared to assume 
 partisan activities. But it is right at this point, 
 namely, after the adoption of the amendment, 
 that the success or failure of Prohibition is to 
 be determined. Laws are of two kinds, those 
 which are permissive, and those which are man- 
 datory. For the execution of a permissive law, 
 nothing more may be needed than the bare pas- 
 sage of the law. It gives somebody the privi- 
 lege of doing something they want to do, and as 
 soon as the privilege is granted they proceed to 
 exercise it. But a riiandatory, a prohibitory law, 
 which says not, You may, but, You may not, 
 requires something more than the bare declara- 
 tion. 
 
 2. Such a non-partisan union must, it is ob- 
 vious, be temporary in its nature. There can be 
 no occasion calling for its existence, as a strictly 
 non-partisan body, until the amendment is submit- 
 ted, nor any occasion for its continuance after 
 the vote has been taken. For temperance societies, 
 of course, there is equal occasion for existence 
 both before and after ; but there can be but a very 
 small sphere of operations for them in the realm 
 of legislation, unless they are ready to use their 
 ballots to enforce their petitions. 
 
 But the organizations of the liquor dealers are 
 permanent, and their sphere of operations is con- 
 tinually extended into the realm of politics, reach- 
 ing from the ward primary to the legislative lobby. 
 
THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 179 
 
 The advantage that results to them from this fact 
 is a very great one, not only daring the amend- 
 ment contest itself, but, if it has resulted unfav- 
 orably to them, afterward in preventing the en- 
 forcement of the law. The non-partisan amend- 
 ment organization dies on the day the vote is 
 taken, for it was created not to elect men but to 
 elect a principle. But now, when the most crit- 
 cal period is reached, the political organizations 
 of the liquor dealers find the field practically clear 
 to them, and time and again they have succeeded 
 in virtually nullifying the law. 
 
 The law has been brought into existence, but its 
 parent has died in giving it birth, while the Herod 
 who seeks its life lives on. It finds an organized 
 opposition ; an unorganized support. 
 
 3. A non-partisan union of this kind must be, 
 from the nature of the case, limited to the extent 
 of a single State, while the organizations of the 
 liquor dealers are National. If in any State, not- 
 withstanding their advantages, they fail to pre- 
 vent submission, fail to prevent adoption, and fail 
 to prevent enforcement of the law, the power 
 which they wield over political leaders in other 
 States, and over the fate of parties in all doubtful 
 States, can be called into requisition. As has 
 been said, the National Protective Association and 
 the United States Brewers' Association have of 
 late years actively interested themselves in all the 
 amendment contests, and it is a significant fact 
 that since their activity began in this direction, 
 
180 THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OP UNION". 
 
 not one amendment contest has been carried for 
 Prohibition. But they have done more than this, 
 for they have appropriated funds to prevent the 
 enforcement of the law in Kansas and Iowa and 
 probably elsewhere, especially in the way of car- 
 rying cases from one court to another. To what 
 extent their political power has been exerted upon 
 leaders of the National parties in doubtful States, 
 to arrest the spread of Prohibition, cannot be 
 known ; but it is not necessary to go farther than 
 the columns of the paper in Washington, edited 
 by the attorney of the Brewers' Association, to 
 see that the exertion in this direction has been 
 strenuously made. 
 
 The thought may suggest itself here that the 
 argument that has been presented proves too 
 much, for Prohibition has already been secured in 
 five States by the non-partisan method. This, 
 however, is not strictly true ; in fact, it involves a 
 double error. In the first place, Prohibition has 
 not been secured in five States, even though prohi- 
 bitory law has been. In each of these States where 
 the law exists, with the exception perhaps of Kan- 
 sas, the instances of culpable negligence in its en- 
 forcement are many. 
 
 In the second place, the law itself has not been 
 secured except as the result, in some part, of par- 
 tisan action, and, in greater part still, of the dread 
 of partisan action. In Maine, indeed, the enact- 
 ment of the law was secured, at first by non-parti- 
 san action, but almost at once upon its passage 
 
THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 181 
 
 its weaknesses were disclosed, and a distinct Maine 
 Law Party was organized for the express purpose 
 of enacting and executing necessary enforcing 
 legislation. 
 
 In Kansas also the law was secured by non-par- 
 tisan influences, but much the same order of 
 events was witnessed there. The constant power 
 of the liquor dealers continued to make itself felt 
 after the swell of public sentiment had subsided. 
 In many of the cities, in consequence, notably in 
 Topeka, no effort was made to enforce the law for 
 several years. At least one of the influences 
 which defeated the renomination of Governor St. 
 John in 1884, and secured the nomination of a 
 candidate with views unfavorable to the law, was 
 that of the enemies of Prohibition. That very 
 year the question was made a partisan question. 
 The Prohibition party came into the field with 4 r 
 495 votes, Two years later their vote had increased 
 to 8,094, and in several congressional districts 
 they came ominously near to holding the balance 
 of power. Alarmed by this demonstration, the 
 Republican party inserted in its State platform of 
 that year a strong declaration against the saloon 
 as a place " wherein every form of vice, immoral- 
 " ity and crime is fostered," and made a demand for 
 such an enforcement of the law as would " render 
 "it impossible to sell intoxicating liquor in the 
 "State." From that time the administration of 
 the law changed very materially for the better. 
 The non-partisan method in Kansas, while it se- 
 
182 THE NON-PARTISAN PLAN OF UNION. 
 
 cured prohibitory law, failed signally to secure 
 Prohibition. 
 
 In Iowa and Rhode Island the partisan method 
 had to be resorted to before the question could 
 even be obtained for submission to the vote of the 
 people. In Iowa the Prohibition party had 
 attained, prior to the submission of the amend- 
 ment, a vote of 10,545 votes (1877) ; and in 
 Rhode Island the Prohibition party nearly trebled 
 its vote in three years (1884-85-86) just prior to 
 the submission of the amendment. To attribute 
 the submission of the amendment to the rapid 
 growth of the Prohibition party vote, may strike 
 some as a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc rea- 
 soning ; but precisely similar coincidences in Tex* 
 as, Tennessee, Michigan, Oregon, Nebraska and 
 Pennsylvania, justify the inference drawn, that in 
 each case the non-partisan exercise of power has 
 been insufficient to secure Prohibition, or even, 
 in most cases, to secure prohibitory law, without 
 resort to partisan methods sooner or later. 
 
 It has been confessed, indeed, by the most 
 ardent advocates of the non-partisan methods that 
 these methods are insufficient to accomplish all 
 that is to be done in order to secure Prohibition, 
 and that they must be supplemented by other 
 methods. One proposes a balance-of-power party 
 as a supplemental method, and another proposes 
 partisan action through one of the old parties, 
 both of which plans have shown themselves, upon 
 analysis in previous pages-, to be /^practicable. 
 
THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PAKTY. 183 
 
 4. The Objections to a New Party. 
 
 How then shall the necessary union of the foes 
 of the saloon be secured, a union in action as 
 well as in purpose ? If it is impracticable to se- 
 cure such a union in a balance-of-power party, or 
 in either of the old parties, and if non-partisan 
 union falls far short of the requirements of the 
 case, there seems to be but one method left, and 
 that is union in a new party ; all who recognize 
 the importance of this issue, North and South, 
 Republican and Democrat, white and black, leav- 
 ing their old political affiliations, meeting each 
 other half-way in a new political organization, that 
 shall nominate its own candidates, urge on its 
 own campaigns, and present to the voter on elec- 
 tion day a ballot that will mean, when cast and 
 counted and recorded, that the voter is in favor 
 of outlawing the liquor traffic. 
 
 This has been done, and the results have been 
 seen in the last four years as follows : (1) A re- 
 markable increase in the public interest and dis- 
 cussion of this subject ; (2) an equally note- 
 worthy increase in the amount of restrictive legis- 
 lation enacted by the legislatures of almost all 
 the States in the Union ; (3) a most manifest 
 increase in the alarm of those whose interests 
 are closely identified with the liquor traffic. It is 
 needless to enter into details concerning these 
 points ; whoever seeks them can find them with- 
 out difficulty. To say that these results are 
 directly and solely due to the Prohibition party, 
 
184 THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PARTY. 
 
 is not true. They are due, not so much to what that 
 parti/ has done, as to the apprehension of what it 
 may do and may become. 
 
 Several objections have been urged with force 
 against the program of separate party action. It 
 is urged that, 
 
 1. A distinct party plan of action drags the con- 
 test down from the high plane of principle to the low 
 plane of partisan politics. This is a great moral 
 question, it is said, and should be fought out on a 
 high moral plane. Such doubtless would be more 
 agreeable to high-minded men, and more in accord 
 with their habits of thought and life. Political 
 strife has come to smack of coarseness, self-seek- 
 ing, and deceit, and the thought of active partici- 
 pation in it further than casting a vote on the day 
 of election, is to many an extremely repellant 
 thought. Bat after all, the question is not what 
 is agreeable, but what is necessary to effect the 
 removal of a great public incubus. The attitude 
 of Government must be changed, and under our 
 system of representative Government the only 
 way to effect such changes is by electing men who 
 shall represent our desires. It is impossible to do 
 so in any other way. Whatever force this objec- 
 tion has, therefore, is directed against our system 
 of Government, which renders such methods neces- 
 sary in order to carry out public reforms. Besides, 
 strife with evil in the abstract is a very different 
 thing from strife with concrete, living, ugly evil. 
 It is not on the Mount of Transfiguration that 
 
THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PARTY. 185 
 
 one comes to close grips with the devil, and for 
 that reason it is not ours to stay there and build 
 our tabernacles, however exalted the place may 
 seem to be. 
 
 But, after all, is there not something in this 
 very objection that reveals more strongly than 
 ever the need of carrying just such a moral ques- 
 tion as this, which is a Governmental question 
 as well, into the midst of political strife? If 
 politics is a " dirty pool," is it not because it has 
 been left too long to those who delight in dirty 
 pools ? In itself, politics should be an ennobling 
 pursuit the outer court of the temple of states- 
 manship. It is not of necessity ignoble, but only 
 so when it becomes, instead of conflict between 
 principles, a mere strife between place : seekers and 
 gamesters. When issues real and great come to 
 the front from their own inherent greatness, and 
 the factitious issues that have been forced upon 
 the people for the sake of mere personal or party 
 advantage drop to the rear, then politics becomes 
 no longer a mere dirty pool, but an arena of 
 humanity, where the best that manhood has to 
 offer is not too great as a sacrifice. Prohibition is, 
 indeed, a moral issue ; what Governmental issue 
 is not a moral one as well ? Honesty is a moral 
 issue, but it becomes a very important political 
 one at times. 
 
 2. The distinct party method divides instead of 
 uniting those who support the principle of Prohibi- 
 tion. So it does, undoubtedly, for the time being. 
 
186 THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PARTY. 
 
 Its first effect is to divide into three parties the 
 foes of the saloon who were formerly divided into 
 but two. But this is an objection inevitable in 
 the inauguration of any new movement. The 
 objection would be equally valid against every new 
 departure in politics if it were made before all 
 were ready to make it at the same time. When 
 Dr. Rush inaugurated the crusade against the use 
 of spirituous liquors, he divided the forces of 
 "temperance" for the time being. The total 
 abstinence movement created another division for 
 the time being. No advance step can be taken in 
 politics, religion, business, or in any other of the 
 spheres of action without incurring the same 
 objection. In inaction alone is there freedom from 
 division. The question in this case, therefore, is 
 not whether the party method creates further 
 division at once, but whether it creates the most 
 feasible basis for union hereafter. It must be 
 remembered that the foes of the saloon are already 
 disastrously divided into two parties, and in con- 
 sequence nullifying one anothers' efforts to a great 
 extent in the sphere of politics. The new party 
 divides them still more, but it divides them from 
 both old parties to reunite them in a new. Every 
 division caused by it in the old parties means a 
 reunion in the new party. 
 
 3. Laws against crime are not, it is urged, proper 
 subjects for party issues. It is true that the law 
 against theft, robbery, and murder are not party 
 issues, and might gain nothing by being made so. 
 
THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PARTY. 187 
 
 But if it were conceivable that highway robbery, 
 for instance, had been made a lawful business, 
 subject to certain charges to be paid into the pub- 
 lic treasury ; and that thousands had come to 
 make it their daily business, and millions of dol- 
 lars had been invested in it, it is quite likely in 
 such event that prohibition of highway robbery 
 would be an issue requiring a sharp conflict 
 between organized parties. In the case of the 
 liquor traffic, the necessity is not, as in the case 
 of crime, for a mere adjustment of penalties, for 
 the purpose of carrying out an established policy ; 
 but the necessity is for a change in the policy, 
 a reversal of the attitude of Government from that 
 of protection to that of Prohibition. To change 
 this attitude requires a decisive conflict between 
 two well-defined policies, each supported by organ- 
 ized bodies. 
 
 4. The most deterrent of all objections to the 
 party method is probably this : that the processes of 
 formation for a new party, are likely to result in 
 weakening the better of the two existing parties, and 
 in strengthening the worse. A new party, it is 
 feared, though it may come into power some time 
 in a remote future, will, until then, result in giving 
 to the friends of the saloon a fuller swing of power 
 and ampler opportunity for entrenching them- 
 selves in office. 
 
 The answer to this objection is a twofold one : 
 first, an appeal to faith, and, second, an appeal to 
 facts. 
 
188 THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PARTY. 
 
 The facts are as follows. During the four years 
 from 1884 to 1888, in which the processes of for. 
 mation for the new party were most active, the 
 result, so far from being an increase in the free- 
 dom of the liquor traffic, was a very positive 
 decrease. In no other four years of the Nation's 
 history, probably, was so much stringent liquor 
 legislation enacted as during the period just men- 
 tioned. At the time of the campaign of 1884, it 
 was very freely predicted that the cause of tem- 
 perance had been " set back twenty years " by the 
 party methods adopted by Prohibitionists. Men 
 argued in this very natural way, that the transfer- 
 ence of power from the party more friendly to 
 temperance legislation, and unto the party more 
 averse to such legislation, would result in worse 
 laws or in feebler execution of those laws already 
 in existence. But as a matter of fact the very 
 reverse of this took place. There became appar- 
 ent a solicitude, on the part of both old parties, 
 and even, to a marked degree, on the part of the 
 liquor dealers themselves, not to offend too deeply 
 the temperance sentiment of the country. Merely 
 from motives of policy, therefore, if from none 
 other, leaders of one party felt called upon to exert 
 themselves as never before in order to prevent a 
 further exodus from their ranks, and the leaders of 
 the other party had a care not to check that exo- 
 dus from the ranks of their rival by flagrant acts 
 of overt friendship to the liquor dealers. 
 
 The result then has been that more concessions 
 
'THE OBJECTIONS TO A NEW PAKTY. 18& 
 
 have been made to temperance sentiment, by State 
 Legislatures, in the four years following the St. 
 John coinpaign, than in the ten years preceding. 
 In seven States (Rhode Island, Michigan, Oregon, 
 Texas, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Massachu- 
 setts) and one Territory (Dakota) prohibitory 
 amendments have been submitted to popular vote 
 in response to the previously unheeded petitions 
 of the temperance workers, and in three other 
 States (West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Neb- 
 raska) the day for such a vote has been set. 
 Laws for scientific temperance instruction in the 
 common schools have been passed in sixteen States 
 and one Territory, and by Congress for the schools 
 under Federal supervision. In the prohibitory 
 States of Maine, Kansas, Iowa, and Vermont, en- 
 forcing laws of very great importance have been 
 enacted. In many other States, especially Penn- 
 sylvania, Minnesota, and New Jersey, severe 
 restrictive measures have been grafted on the 
 license laws. The increasing evidences of alarm 
 manifested by the liquor dealers, have been an indi- 
 cation pointing strongly in the same direction. 
 
 The point that is sought to be made here is not 
 that this increase of stringent legislation is due to 
 the Prohibition party ; but that the formative pro- 
 cesses of that party have served rather to stimu- 
 late than to check such legislation. The appre- 
 hension that they would place a strong barrier in 
 the way of such legislation has certainly not beeo, 
 realized. 
 
190 IS PUBLIC SENTIMENT READY 
 
 5. Is Public Sentiment Ready for a Prohibition 
 Party. 
 
 If it be admitted that the cause of Prohibition 
 requires a new party to make it an efficient suc- 
 cess, the question still remain whether the time for 
 it has come. What probabilities of success has it? 
 Is public sentiment far enough advanced? What 
 other issues are in the way claiming a prior settle- 
 ment at the hands of existing parties ? 
 
 It is said that public sentiment is not ready for 
 such a party or such a law. However this may be, 
 there can be no reasonable objection urged against 
 an organized effort to make public sentiment ready. 
 What indeed is a party but an organized attempt 
 to bring public sentiment up to a certain point and 
 then direct it into certain definite action ? There 
 certainly can be no fear that such a party, which 
 must contend every foot of the way, will come 
 into power before enough public sentiment has 
 been created to sustain such a law. The party 
 that appeals to popular passion or prejudice may 
 indeed ride suddenly into power on a swell of 
 emotional excitement it has created, and work 
 great mischief before the reaction comes. But 
 there is small fear that any such premature suc- 
 cess will attend a party that antagonizes popular 
 passion and appetite, and which must hold men, if 
 it holds them at all, by steady and persistent con- 
 viction rather than by temporary impulses. The 
 party must create the sentiment before it comes 
 into power. 
 
IS PUBLIC SENTIMENT READY. 
 
 191 
 
 But the above objection generally assumes 
 another form. It is said that the party has no 
 chances of success; that a vote cast with it must 
 be, for years to come, thrown away ; that, in short, 
 the whole movement in the present state of public 
 opinion, however admirable it may be from some 
 points of view, is a premature movement. 
 
 Whether or not this is so depends largely upon, 
 (1) the strength of Prohibition sentiment already 
 developed, and (2) the extent to which it can be 
 concentrated in a new party. 
 
 The progress made by public sentiment toward 
 the principle of Prohibition, is best seen in the 
 votes which have been cast for it in the amend- 
 ment campaigns. Since 1880, the direct vote of the 
 people has been taken on this question in ten dif- 
 ferent States, and one Territory. The results are 
 tabulated below : 
 
 STATE OR TERKITORY. 
 
 Vote for 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Vote against 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Kansas, 1880 
 
 92,302 
 
 84,304 
 
 Iowa, 1882 
 Ohio, 1883 
 
 323,189 
 
 240,975 
 
 Maine, 1884 
 
 70,783 
 
 23,811 
 
 Rhode Island, 1886 
 
 15,113 
 
 9,230 
 
 Michigan, 1887 
 
 178,636 
 
 184,281 
 
 Texas, 1887 
 
 129,270 
 
 220,627 
 
 Tennessee, 1887 
 
 117,504 
 
 145,197 
 
 Oregon, 1887 
 
 19,973 
 
 27,958 
 
 New Hampshire, 1888 
 
 25,786 
 
 30,976 
 
 Dakota, 1885 
 
 15,570 
 
 15,337 
 
 Total 
 
 1.143,562 
 
 1,108,373 
 
 The above figures are obtained from The Political Prohibitionist for 
 1887 and 1888. They are official figures. 
 
 Here, then, in these ten States and one Terri- 
 tory (now two States) of the Union, considerably 
 
192 IS PUBLIC SENTIMENT READY. 
 
 more than one million votes have been recorded in 
 favor of Prohibition itself, as an issue distinct 
 from party entanglements. On comparing this 
 vote with the vote cast in each of the above 
 States in the presidential election that dated near- 
 est the time the vote on Prohibition was taken, we 
 find the total presidential vote to have been 2,703,- 
 512. Two-fifths, then, of the entire vote of these 
 States was enrolled in favor of Prohibition ; less 
 than two-fifths were enrolled against it, and more 
 than one-fifth refrained from voting. If the votes 
 taken by counties and cities, in 1886, in the States 
 of Arkansas, Missouri, and Massachusetts, on the 
 question of license or no-license, be considered, 
 about the same proportions will be seen to have 
 held for those States also. 
 
 The same proportion throughout the country, as in 
 these fifteen /States, would show that the voting 
 strength of Prohibition is already four-fifths of a 
 voting majority. 
 
 This strength, too, has been acquired in spite of 
 the generally hostile attitude of the daily press, 
 and the more or less hostile attitude of the 
 " machines " of both old parties, two agencies 
 which, when combined, are generally omnipotent 
 in the realm of politics. When it is remembered 
 that the prohibitory 'sentiment among the women 
 of the land is still more active and zealous, the 
 near possibilities of the movement take on a vaster 
 form. 
 
 But can this sentiment be consolidated in 
 
IS PUBLIC SENTIMENT READY 193 
 
 party ? To accomplish this there must be some- 
 thing more than a mere belief in Prohibition ; 
 there must be a belief in it as the dominant issue. 
 Men do not draw out of an old political party, to 
 join a new, unless they are convinced that the new 
 party stands for an issue of more vital importance 
 than the old. Whether this conviction can be 
 implanted deep enough and wide enough to insure 
 victory, is of course one of those problems that 
 the future only can solve. Several considerations, 
 however, are pertinent here as casting light on the 
 question of the permanency of the party. 
 
 Almost invariably in the history of third parties, 
 the desire for fusion has been the forerunner of 
 the party's fate. The temptation becomes strong, 
 when a balance of power has been gained, to 
 secure immediate results by combining with one 
 or other of the old parties. The temptation may 
 come in the form of a nomination to office con- 
 ceded to the new party, or the promise of certain 
 legislation, or a share of the official patronage in 
 the event of victory. Whatever may be the 
 motive prompting the fusion, the result has, as a 
 rule, been disastrous to the new party, and for a 
 very obvious reason. Its membership has, pre- 
 sumably, been drawn from both old parties, and a 
 combination with either one is naturally distaste- 
 ful therefore to a large number, who look upon 
 such action as a breach of faith. Recriminations 
 follow, leader becomes arrayed against leader, 
 mutual distrust is engendered, and the usual 
 
194 IS PUBLIC SENTIMENT READY. 
 
 of a house divided against itself is the result. 
 The epitaph that might well be written for every 
 third party whose remains strew the highway of 
 history is : Fusion Confusion Diffusion. 
 
 The Prohibition party has steadily avoided this 
 danger. It has done so not from the lack of 
 opportunity, nor from a mere happy chance ; but 
 from intelligent conviction. One of the popular 
 watchwords of the party has been : " We make no 
 deals." This course determinedly adhered to, 
 while it has caused some bitter feeling among 
 those outside the party, has preserved within the 
 party an unbroken harmony and an assured confi- 
 dence in its leadership. 
 
 The party has had, therefore, if not a very 
 rapid, a very steady and solid growth. It has 
 maintained its National organization during five 
 successive presidential campaigns, and in the last 
 three its vote has been in round numbers : 1880, 
 10,000 ; 1884, 150,000 ; 1888, 250,000. This, of 
 course, is a long way "from anything like victory; 
 but the growth of a new party is very apt to be 
 in something like geometrical ratio. Each advance 
 renders easier a next advance, and renders more 
 enthusiastic the efforts to secure it. 
 
 Briefly stated, the claims for the party's perman- 
 ence and success are : 
 
 1. The nature of its issue. It is clearly defined, 
 and its advocates know exactly what they want in 
 the way of practical legislation. They are agreed 
 pt only on the end to be reached, but on the way 
 
OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 195 
 
 in which to reach it. Its proposed reform has 
 been tested and tried for more than a generation, 
 and the sources of its strength and weakness are 
 known. It is not, therefore, a mere speculation 
 or a sentiment. It is a moral, as well as a political 
 issue, calculated to arouse that most potent of all 
 the forces known to history, namely, moral enthusi- 
 asm. It is an industrial reform of the first value 
 to all classes, capitalists and wage-earners alike. 
 It is a non-sectional and non-racial issue, appealing 
 equally to voters of all sections and all colors. 
 And above all it is an issue of constant and 
 increasing importance. The evil which it seeks to 
 remedy is one that is daily forcing itself upon 
 public attention. The rapid growth of great 
 cities, the immense accessions to our population, 
 as well as the laws of appetite and avarice, com- 
 bine to make the issue one of greater and greater 
 consequence. It was not born of political change ; 
 it will not die by reason of it. 
 
 2. A public sentiment already reaching nearly 
 four-fifths of a voting majority of the Nation, favor- 
 able to the principle and policy of Prohibition. 
 
 3. A steady avoidance, on the part of those con- 
 trolling the policy of the new party, of those mis- 
 takes of fusion, which have wrecked so many other 
 third parties at the outset of their career. 
 
 6. Other Issues of the Day. 
 
 Finally, is to be considered the nature of other 
 issues clamorous for attention, and the effect which 
 
196 OTftER ISSUES OF Ttffi DAY. 
 
 the new party's success would have upon them. 
 
 Political corruption has become one of the most 
 urgent of these issues. 
 
 The relation which the saloon bears to this evil, 
 in its present form, has been pointed out in previous 
 pages. But would not the new party, as it came 
 into power, become equally corrupt with the old 
 parties? Naturally, it would then attract place- 
 seekers and spoilsmen, and the morals of the party 
 would suffer. The approach to success would 
 doubtless bring to this as to all other parties in- 
 creased temptations and a diminution in the purity 
 of its methods. But it would have cut itself 
 loose, of necessity, from the saloon, and from 
 those methods of corruption which can be made 
 successful on a large scale only through the saloon. 
 Moreover, a campaign on a really important issue, 
 moral as well as political, is sure to bring to the 
 front moral leaders and to relegate to the rear the 
 mere wire-pullers and tricksters. It is when a 
 party becomes devoid of any such issues that it 
 has to depend so implicitly upon the " machine " 
 and those skilled in manipulating it. 
 
 Tariff Reform is another issue that has been 
 more or less prominent throughout the history of 
 the Nation, and which, so long as there is a tariff, 
 will continue to demand attention from time to 
 time. But this issue, so far as it is made an issue 
 at all between the two old parties, consists entirely 
 in matters of detail. So far as platform utterances 
 go, both parties stand on the same ground in re- 
 
OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 197 
 
 spect to the tariff, since both declare in favor of a 
 readjustment of rates, and neither declares for free 
 trade. On the details of readjustment there is 
 conflict ; on the need of some sort of readjustment 
 there is agreement. The Democratic House has 
 one tariff reform bill and the Republican Senate 
 has another, and the only question is which better 
 meets the industrial needs of the Nation. To 
 determine this requires a mastery of the details of 
 the tariff and of industrial conditions which few 
 voters can hope to obtain. 
 
 If there is any issue that suffers from being 
 made a partisan question it is the issue of Tariff 
 Reform. It is about the last question in the world 
 that should be settled by means of popular vote, 
 for it is one the average voter can not, from the very 
 nature of the case, pass judgment upon with com- 
 prehensive intelligence. The lumberman of Maine 
 may be well-fitted to decide what the effect of a 
 certain schedule of rates on lumber would be ; but 
 how is he to come to an intelligent opinion on the 
 precise duty that should be placed on pig iron or 
 steel rails? Or what can the iron merchant 
 ordinarily know regarding the exact per cent, 
 of duty that should be placed on cut lumber ? 
 The miner of Michigan and the potter of New 
 Jersey know the conditions each of his own 
 industry, but what means has either of de- 
 ciding whether the rate on the other's product can 
 be safely lowered ten or twenty per cent ? In 
 fact, as a general rule, the only particulars in 
 
198 OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 
 
 which the average voter is competent to decide, 
 are the very ones in which his own self-interest is 
 likely to bias his decision. It becomes, therefore, 
 a conflict mainly of local and selfish interests. 
 
 If it were a question between free trade and pro- 
 tection, a question, that is, between principles and 
 not details, the lumberman of Maine, the iron 
 worker of Pennsylvania, the potter of Jersey, the 
 miner of Michigan, the wool-grower of Ohio, and 
 the sugar planter of Louisiana, might all be equally 
 fitted to decide, and, what is better, those whose 
 self-interest was not directly involved would be 
 equally competent, or more so, to form a correct 
 conclusion. But it is no such issue and neither 
 party can make such an issue as at present consti- 
 tuted. Nor, indeed, can either party approach the 
 question of details with anything like an har- 
 monious spirit. Tariff Reform with both old 
 parties, has become, under such circumstances, a 
 mere playing for points, a strife for party advant- 
 age. The Democratic bill puts salt, a Northern 
 product chiefty, on the free list, but leaves a duty 
 of over sixty per cent., on sugar, a Southern product 
 chiefly. The Republican bill retaliates by leaving 
 the duty on salt undisturbed, but cutting down 
 the duty on sugar fifty per cent. The Congress- 
 man of upper New York votes, as one admitted to 
 the writer not long ago, for a high duty on hops, 
 to keep out those of Canadian growth, but for free 
 trade in hop-poles so that his constituents could 
 purchase them at the cheapest rates. The only 
 
ISSUES OF THE DAY. 
 
 wise plan of regulating equitably the tariff rates 
 from year to year or from decade to decade, seems 
 to be by a commission of industrial experts, such 
 as was constituted by Congress a few years ago, 
 before which all interests have a hearing, and by 
 which a readjustment of rates according to the 
 industrial needs of the nation, and not the needs 
 of partisanship, may be expected. 
 
 The Labor Problems of the day are clamorous, 
 but chaotic. Who can tell just what they are, 
 much less just what they demand? What plan of 
 action could possibly form the basis of a united 
 labor party? What is the specific legislation 
 on which the labor interests are agreed ? In the 
 last presidential campaign there were five distinct 
 parties, each claiming to be a labor party, in the 
 field, namely, Union Labor, United Labor, Green- 
 back, Industrial Reform, and Socialists. 
 
 A free ballot and a fair count is to %any vot- 
 ers an issue of supreme importance, but is, again, 
 an issue which neither old party seems capable of 
 settling, doubtless because both share in the guilt 
 of corrupting the ballot-box where they have 
 power enough to do so with impunity. Just how 
 much of fact there is in the representations made 
 concerning the way in which the negro in some of 
 the Southern States is defrauded of his ballot, it 
 is difficult to tell. But this is certain, that twen- 
 ty-four years of Republican ascendancy in the 
 White House failed to correct the evil, or indeed, 
 if the representations of some Republican leaders 
 
200 OTtfER ISSUES OP TrfE 
 
 are to be credited, even to check it. The same 
 conditions seem to have prevailed under Republi- 
 can as under Democratic ascendancy. Either the 
 evil is one that can not be reached by Federal in- 
 terference, or both parties have shamelessly neg- 
 lected to reach it. And if it can be remedied only 
 by State action, the fact that in the last campaign 
 the Republican party entirely abandoned the field 
 in many of the Southern States, making no State 
 nominations and no campaign, seems to indicate 
 that if the remedy is to come at all it must be by 
 some other channel than that party. 
 
 In fact, the day of distinct issues between the 
 two old parties has to all present appearances 
 passed away. Their issues now are factitious 
 ones, differing with different localities, changing 
 from one year to another in the same locality. 
 Their appeals are almost wholly appeals to past 
 records or fitter assaults upon the honesty and 
 patriotism of their opponents. It is a strife of ins 
 and outs. Years ago Ralph Waldo Emerson said : 
 
 " From neither party, when in power, has the 
 world any benefit to expect in science, art, or 
 humanity, at all commensurate with the re- 
 sources of the nation." (Emerson's "Essay on 
 Politics:') 
 And again he says : 
 
 " The vice of our leading parties in this country 
 is that they do not plant themselves on the deep 
 and necessary grounds to which they are respec- 
 
OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 201 
 
 tively entitled, but lash themselves to fury in 
 the carrying of some local and momentary mea- 
 sure, nowise useful to the Commonwealth." 
 What Emerson described as the condition of 
 affairs a few years ago, a careful student of Ameri- 
 can politics describes as the condition to-day. In 
 his work on " The American Commonwealth," 
 which has won such high encomiums from all 
 critics, Prof. Bryce, of Edinburgh, says : 
 
 "This election [1876] marks the close of the 
 third period, which embraces the rise and over- 
 whelming predominance of the Republican 
 party. Formed to resist the extension of slav- 
 ery, led on to destroy it, compelled by circum- 
 stances to expand the central authority in a way 
 un thought of before, that party had now worked 
 out its program and fulfilled its original mis- 
 sion. The old aims were accomplished, but 
 new ones had not yet been substituted, for 
 though new problems had appeared, the party 
 was not prepared with solutions. Similarly the 
 Democratic party had discharged its mission in 
 defending the rights of the reconstructed States 
 and criticising excesses of executive power; 
 similarly it too had refused to grapple either 
 with the fresh questions which had begun to 
 arise since the war, or with those older ques- 
 tions which had now reappeared above the sub- 
 siding flood of war-days. The old parties still 
 stood as organizations, and still claimed to be 
 
202 OTHER ISSUES OF THE BAY. 
 
 the exponents of principles. Their respective 
 principles had, however, little direct application 
 to the questions which confronted and divided 
 the Nation. A new era was opening, which 
 called either for the evolution of new parties or 
 for the transformation of the old ones by the 
 adoption of tenets, and the advocacy of views 
 suited to the needs of the time. But this 
 fourth period, which began with 1876, has not 
 yet seen such a transformation, and we shall 
 therefore find, when we come to examine the 
 existing state of parties, that there is an unre- 
 ality and lack of vital force in both Republi- 
 cans and Democrats, powerful as their organiza- 
 tions are." (The American Commonwealth, vol. 
 II., p. 648.) 
 
 "The American parties now continue to exist be- 
 cause they have existed. The mill has been 
 constructed and its machinery goes on turning 
 even when there is no grist to grind." p. 656. 
 
 In designating the new issues which have arisen 
 since the war and are now calling for settlement, 
 Professor Bryce first mentions the treatment of 
 the liquor traffic. He says 
 
 " That [hew issue] which most keenly interests 
 the people, though of course not all the people, 
 is the regulation or extinction of the liquor 
 traffic. On this neither party has committed or 
 will commit itself. * * * * Practically 
 for both parties the point of consequence 19 
 
OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 203 
 
 what they can gain or lose. Each has clearly 
 something to lose. The drinking part of the 
 population is chiefly foreign. Now the Irish 
 are mainly Democrats, so the Democratic party 
 dare not offend them. The Germans are mainly 
 Republicans, so the Republicans are equally 
 bound over to caution." p. 657. 
 
 Such is the condition as seen by a careful ob- 
 server, who has the additional advantage of observ- 
 ing American politics as an outsider. Two par- 
 ties, marshalling their forces each year in heated 
 conflict over nobody knows what. A tremendous 
 expenditure of energy and money, accompanied 
 generally with a deluge of unsavory personalities 
 for the lack of better campaign material, and with 
 demoralization to business, in order to decide, not 
 a great question of national polity, but whether 
 one set of politicians or another shall enter upon 
 the offices. " The mill has been constructed and 
 " its machinery goes on turning even when there 
 u is no grist to grind." 
 
 The appeal can be made with confidence, to 
 any candid voter, Republican or Democrat, if the 
 conditions of political life in our country to-day 
 do not tally very closely with those described by 
 the historian Froude, in speaking of another Re- 
 public of earlier times. Mr. Froude said : 
 
 "The essential causes of difference had ceased, 
 but two traditional parties still contended for 
 supremacy, ad as the distinctions grew more 
 
204 OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 
 
 unreal, the more bitter faction became. Men of 
 real ability, to whatever party they belonged, 
 thought at heart very much alike. They knew 
 that they could not stand still in a world of 
 change, and they knew that if they let the 
 horses run away there was risk of an overturn. 
 When there was no longer any question of prin- 
 ciple, the contention of parties in the Legisla- 
 ture degenerated into a struggle for power, and 
 the chiefs on both sides were driven forward by 
 a fatal necessity to raise new questions, to excite 
 new hopes, and to appeal to passion to decide 
 on problems which required the coolest reason. 
 However able a man was, he could not do his 
 ability justice. His duty was to his party his 
 party first, his country after. Statesmen might 
 see the truth, but they dared not act upon it. 
 They were arranged in opposite camps, each ad- 
 vocating one set of opinions only, and denounc- 
 ing their rivals as public enemies. They had 
 often to thwart what they knew to be good, and 
 to advocate what they really disapproved. If 
 the result was music, the music was made out 
 of discord. A genuine patriot could only ex- 
 claim, 4 A plague o' both your houses.' " (Ad- 
 dress by James Anthony 2f'roude, Nov.. 3, 1882, on 
 "A Lesson on Democracy" before the Birming- 
 ham Institute.) 
 
 The peril of this condition of things described 
 by Mr. Froude, is greatly increased in this coun- 
 try by the fact that here this division of parties is 
 
OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAY. 205 
 
 to such a great extent a sectional division. No 
 patriot can view with other than feelings of regret 
 the array of the virtuous and intelligent in one 
 section against those of the same character in an- 
 other section, not because of any vital difference 
 in belief or patriotic purpose, but by reason of the 
 passions of a war ended nearly a quarter of a cen- 
 tury ago, and by reason of the distrust kept alive 
 by political leaders of both sections for partisan 
 ends. The division, as has been said, is an unna- 
 tural one. Twenty-five years of political strife 
 have left every Southern State in the Democratic 
 column, and every Northern State, excepting 
 Connecticut, in the Republican column. (Elec- 
 tion of 1888.) Such a division is fraught with 
 opportunities for mischief, especially when played 
 upon by political demagogues. Questions of 
 finance and of political economy have failed to 
 obliterate the dividing lines left by the war. Is it 
 not hopeless to expect that anything short of a 
 readjustment of voters along new lines will ac- 
 complish the desired result ? There is certainly 
 no issue now in politics so likely to accomplish 
 this new alignment of parties as Prohibition. 
 
 So far, then, from it's being too soon for the 
 new party, the time is really over-due. The op- 
 portunity is ripe, and has been for years. A 
 more favorable conjunction of circumstances it 
 would be difficult to conceive. The yearly sur- 
 plus in the Federal Treasury just about equals the 
 revenue from the Federal tax on liquors. The 
 
OTHER ISSUES OF THE DAI 
 
 removal of this tax, therefore, instead of requiring 
 new methods of taxation, would relieve the Nation 
 of a heavy incubus and a constant temptation to 
 extravagance and corruption. No interests of the 
 Nation would suffer from a new readjustment of 
 voters ; some of its dearest interests would derive 
 therefrom inestimable gain. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 U. S. SUPREME COURT. 
 
 PETER MUGLER 
 
 v. } 2 CASES. 
 
 THE STATE OF KANSAS. 
 
 AND 
 
 THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
 CASE. 
 ZIEBOLD & HAGELIN. 
 
 1, 
 
 OCTOBER TERM, 1887. 
 
 Nos. 19 and 20. PETER MUGLER, plaintiff in error, ;. THE STATE OP 
 KANSAS. 
 
 In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. 
 
 No. 934. THE STATE OF KANSAS EX REL. J. F. TUFTS. Assistant Attor- 
 ney-General of the State of Kansas for Atchisoii County, Kan., 
 appellant, v. HERMAN ZIEBOLD and JOSEPH HAGELIN, partners as 
 ZIEBOLD & HAGELIN. 
 
 Appeal from the Circuit C&urt of the United States for the District of 
 Kansas. 
 
 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. 
 
 These cases involve an inquiry into the validity of certain statutes of 
 Kansas relating to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. 
 The first two are indictments charging Mugler. the plaintiff in error, in 
 one case, with having sold, and in the other, with having manufac- 
 tured spirituous, vinous, malt, fermented and other intoxicating 
 liquors, in Saline County, Kansas, without having the license or per- 
 mit required by the statute. The defendant, having been found guilty, 
 was fined in each case $100, and ordered to be committed to the county 
 jail until the fine was paid. Each judgment was affirmed by the 
 Supreme Court of Kansas, and thereby it is contended, the defendant 
 was denied rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. 
 
 207 
 
208 APPENDIX. 
 
 The third case State of Kansas, ex rel. t etc , v. Ziebold, etc. was 
 commenced by petition filed in one of the courts of the State. Tbe 
 relief sought is: 
 
 1. That the group of buildings constituting the brewery of the 
 defendants, partners, as Ziebold & Hagelin, in Atchison County, Kan., 
 be adjudged a common nuisance, and the sheriff, or other proper offi- 
 cer, directed to shut up or abate the same. 
 
 2. That the defendants be enjoined from using or permitting to be 
 used, the said premises as a place where intoxicating liquors may be 
 sold, bartered or given away, or kept for barter- sale, or gift, other- 
 wise than by authority of law. 
 
 The defendants answered, denying the allegations of the petition, 
 and averring: 
 
 1. That said buildings were erected by them prior to the adoption by 
 the people of Kansas of the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for other than medicinal, 
 scientific, and mechanical purposes, and before the passage of the 
 prohibitory liquor statute of that State. 
 
 2. That they were erected for the purpose of manufacturing beer, 
 and cannot be put to any other use ; and, if not so used, they will be of 
 little value. 
 
 3. That the statute under which said suit was brought, is void under 
 the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The facts necessary to a clear understanding of the questions com- 
 mon to these cases are the following : Mugler, and Ziebold & Hagelin 
 were engaged in manufacturing beer at their respective establish- 
 ments (constructed specially for that purpose) for several years prior 
 to the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment of 1880. They con- 
 tinued in such business in defiance of the statute of 1881, and without 
 having the required permit. Nor did Mugler have a license or permit 
 to sell beer. The single sale of which he was found guilty occurred in 
 the State, and after May 1st, 1881 that is, after the Act of February 
 19th, 1881, took effect and was of beer manufactured before its pass- 
 age. 
 
 The buildings and machinery constituting these breweries are of 
 little value if not used for the purpose of manufacturing beer ; that is 
 to say, if the statutes are enforced against the defendants the value of 
 their property will be very materially diminished. 
 
 The general question in each case is whether the foregoing statutes 
 of Kansas are in conflict with that clause of the Fourteenth Amend- 
 ment, which provides that, 
 
 " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 
 privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any 
 State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due pro- 
 cess of law." 
 
That legislation by a State prohibiting the manufacture within ker 
 limits of intoxicating liquors, to be there sold or bartered for general 
 use as a beverage, does cot necessarily infringe any right, privilege, 
 or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, is made 
 clear by the decisions of this court, rendered before and since the 
 adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; to some of which, in view of 
 questions to be presently considered, it will be well to refer. 
 
 In the License Cases, 5 How. 504, the question was whether certain 
 statutes of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, relating 
 to the sale of spirituous liquors, were repugnant to the Constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 In determining that question it became necessary to inquire whether 
 there was any conflict between the exercise by Congress of its power 
 to regulate commerce with foreign countries, or among the several 
 States, and the exercise by a State of what are called police powers. 
 Although the members of the court did not fully agree as to the 
 grounds upon which the decision should be placed, they were unani- 
 mous in holding that the statutes then under examination were not 
 inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or with any 
 act of Congress. Chief Justice Taney said : 
 
 " If any State deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits 
 injurious to its citizens, and calculated to produce idleness, vice, or 
 debauchery, I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to 
 prevent it from regulating and restraining the traffic, or from prohibit- 
 ing it altogether, if it thinks proper." 
 
 Mr. Justice McLean, among other things, said: 
 
 "A State regulates its domestic commerce, contracts, and transmis- 
 sion of estates, real and personal, and acts upon internal matters 
 which relate to its moral and political welfare. Over these subjects 
 the Federal Government has no power. The acknowledged police 
 power of a State extends often to the destruction of property. A 
 nuisance may be abated. Everything prejudicial to the health or mor- 
 als of a city may be removed." 
 
 Mr. Justice Woodbury observed: 
 
 " How can they (the States) be sovereign within their respective 
 spheres, without power to regulate all their internal commerce, as 
 well as police, and direct how, when and where it shall be conducted 
 in articles intimately connected either with public morals or public 
 safety or public prosperity ?'' 
 
 Mr. Justice Grier, in still more emphatic language, said : 
 
 "The true question presented by these cases, and one which lam 
 not disposed to evade, is whether the States have a right to prohibit 
 the sale and consumption of an article of commerce which they 
 believe to be pernicious in its effects, and the cause of disease, pauper- 
 ism, and crime. Without attempting to define what are the peculiar 
 subjects or limits of this power, it may safely be affirmed that every 
 law for the restraint or punishment of crime, for the preservation of 
 the public peace, health, and morals, must come within this category. 
 
 14 
 
210 APPENDIX 
 
 "It is not necessary, for the sake of justifying the State legislation 
 now under consideration, to array the appalling statistics of misery, 
 pauperism, and crime which have their origin in the use or abuse ol 
 ardent spirits. The police power, which is exclusively in the States, is 
 alone competent to the correction of these great evils, and all meas- 
 ures of restraint or prohibition necessary to effect the purpose, are 
 within the scope of that authority." 
 
 In Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, it was said that prior to the 
 adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, State enactments, regulating 
 or prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating liquors, raised no question 
 under the Constitution of the United States; and that such legislation 
 was left to the discretion of the respective States, subject to no other 
 limitations than those imposed by their own Constitutions, or by the 
 general principles supposed to limit all legislative power. Referring 
 to the contention that the right to sell intoxcating liquors was secured 
 by the Fourteenth Amendment, the court said that "so far as such a 
 right exists, it is not one of the rights growing out of citizenship of the 
 United States." In Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 33, it was 
 said that, "as a measure of police regulation, looking to the preserva- 
 tion of public morals, a State law prohibiting the manufacture and 
 sale of intoxicating liquors is not repugnant to any clause of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States." 
 
 Finally, in Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 206, the court said that the 
 question as to the constitutional power of a State to prohibit the manu- 
 facture and sale of intoxicating liquors was no longer an open one in 
 this court. These cases rest upon the acknowledged right of the 
 several States of the Union to control their purely internal affairs, 
 and, in so doing, to protect the health, morals, and safety of their peo- 
 ple by regulations that do not interfere with the execution of the pow- 
 ers of the General Government, or violate rights secured by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. The power to establish such regulations, 
 as was said in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203, reaches everything 
 within the territory of a State not surrendered to the-National Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 It is, however, contended that, although the State may prohibit the 
 manufacture of intoxicating liquors for sale or barter within her limits, 
 for general use as a beverage, " no convention or Legislature has the 
 right, under our form of government, to prohibit any citizen from 
 manufacturing for his own use, or for export, or storage any article of 
 food or drink not endangering or affecting the rights of others." The 
 argument made in support of the first branch of this proposition 
 briefly stated, is: 
 
 That in the implied compact between the State and the citizen, cer- 
 tain rights are reserved by the latter which are guaranteed by the 
 constitutional provision protecting persons against being deprived of 
 life, liberty or property, without due process of law, and with which 
 the State cannot interfere ; that among those rights is that of manu- 
 facturing for one's own use either food or drink ; and that while, 
 
APPENDIX. 211 
 
 according to tlie doctrines of the Commune, the State may control the 
 tastes, appetites, habits, dress, food, and drink of the people, our sys- 
 tem of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of 
 the citizen, does not claim to control him, except as to his conduct to 
 others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself. 
 
 It will be observed that the proposition, and the argument made in 
 support of it, equally concede that the right to manufacture drink for 
 personal use is subject to the condition that such manufacture does 
 not endanger or affect the rights of others. If such manufacture does 
 prejudicially affect the rights and interests of the community, it fol- 
 lows, from the very premises stated, that society has the power to pro- 
 tect itself, by legislation, against the injurious consequences of that 
 business. As was said in Munn v. Illinois, 91 U. S. 124: " While power 
 does not exist with the whole people to control rights that are purely and 
 exclusively private, Government may require each citizen to so con- 
 duct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to 
 injure another." 
 
 But by whom, or by what authority, is it to be determined whether 
 the manufacture of particular articles of drink, either for general use 
 or for the personal use of the maker, will injuriously affect the public? 
 Power to determine such questions, so as to bind all, must exist some- 
 where ; else society will be at the mercy of the few, who, regarding 
 only their own appetites or passions, may be Avilling to imperil the 
 peace and security of the many, provided only they are permitted to 
 do as they please. Under our system that power is lodged with the 
 legislative branch of the Government. It belongs to that department 
 to exert what are known as the police powers of the State, and to de- 
 termine, primarily, what measures are appropriate or needful for the 
 protection of the public morals, the public health, or the public 
 safety. 
 
 It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for 
 the promotion of these ends, is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion 
 of the police powers of the State. There aie, of necessity, limits be- 
 yond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible 
 presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, 
 Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 718, the couris must obey the Constitution 
 rather than the law-making department ot Government, and must, 
 upon their responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, 
 these limits have been passed. 
 
 "To what purpose," it was said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 
 137, 167, "are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation 
 committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by 
 those intended to be restrained ? The distinction between a govern- 
 ment with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits 
 do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts pro- 
 hibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." The courts are not 
 bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. 
 They are at liberty indeed, are under a solemn duty to look at the 
 
212 APPENDIX. 
 
 substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether 
 the Legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, there- 
 fore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public 
 health, the public morals or the public safety, has no real or substant- 
 ial relation to those objects, 01 is a palpable invasion of rights secured 
 by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and 
 thereby give effect to the Constitution. 
 
 Keeping in view these principles as governing the relations of the 
 judicial and legislative departments of Government with each other, 
 it is difficult to perceive any ground for the judiciary to declare iat 
 the prohibition by Kansas of the manufacture or sale within her limits 
 of intoxicating liquors for general use there as a beverage, is not 
 fairly adapted to the end of protecting the community against the 
 evils which confessedly result from the excessive use of ardent spirits. 
 There is here no justification for holding that the State, under the 
 guise merely of police regulations, is aiming to deprive the citizen of 
 his constitutional rights; for we cannot shut out of view the fact, 
 within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, 
 and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intox- 
 icating drinks; nor the fact, established by statistics accessible to 
 every one, that the disorder, pauperism, and crime prevalent in the 
 country, are in some degree at least traceable to this evil. 
 
 If, therefore, a State deems the absolute prohibition of the manufac- 
 ture and sale within her limits of intoxicating liquors for other than 
 medical, scientific, and manufacturing purposes, to be necessary to 
 the peace and security of society, the courts cannot, without usurping 
 legislative functions, override the will of the people as thus expressed 
 by their chosen representatives. They have nothing to do with the 
 mere policy of legislation. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle in 
 our institutions, indispensable to the preservation of public liberty, 
 that one of the separate departments of Government shall not usurp 
 powers committed by the Constitution to another department. And 
 so, if, in the judgment of the Legislature, the manufacture o,f intoxi- 
 cating liquors for the maker's own use as a beverage, would tend to 
 cripple, if it did not defeat, the effort to guard the community against 
 the evils attending the excessive use of such liquors, it is not for 
 the courts, upon their views as to what is best and safest for the com- 
 munity, to disregard the legislative determination of that question. 
 
 The power which the States unquestionably have of prohibiting such 
 use by individuals of their property as will be prejudicial to the health, 
 the morals, or the safety of the public, is not, and consistently with 
 the existence and safety of organized society cannot be burdened 
 with the condition that the State must compensate such individual 
 owners for pecuniary losses they sustain, by reason of their not being 
 permitted by a noxious use of their property, to inflict injury upon the 
 community. The exercise of the police power by the destruction of 
 propei >f y which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use 
 
in a particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very 
 different from taking property for public use, or from depriving a per- 
 son of his property without due process of law. In the one case, a 
 nuisance only is abated ; in the other, unoffending property is taken 
 away from an innocent owner. 
 
 It is true, that, when the defendants in these cases purchased or 
 erected their breweries, the laws of the State did not forbid the man- 
 ufacture of intoxicating liquors. But the State did not thereby give 
 any assurance, or come under an obligation, that its legislation upon 
 that subject would remain unchanged. Indeed, as was said in Stone 
 v. Mississippi, 101 U. S., the supervision of the public health and the 
 public morals is a Governmental power, " continuing in its nature," 
 and " to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may 
 require;" and that, "for this purpose, the largest legislative discre- 
 tion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more 
 than the power itself.'* 
 
 So in Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32: 
 
 "If the public safety or the public morals require the discontinu- 
 ance of any manufacture or traffic, the hand of the Legislature cannot 
 be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental in- 
 convenience which individuals or corporations may suffer." 
 
 It now remains to consider certain questions relating particularly 
 to the thirteenth section of the Act of 1885. That section is as follows: 
 
 "SECTION 13. All places where intoxicating liquors are manufac- 
 tured, sold, bartered or given away in violation of any of the provis- 
 ions of this act, or where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, barter 
 or delivery in violation of this act, are hereby declared to be common 
 nuisances, and upon the judgment of any court having jurisdiction 
 finding such place to be a nuisance under this section, the sheriff, his 
 deputy, or under-sheriff, or any constable of the proper county, or 
 marshal of any city where the same is located, shall be directed to 
 shut up and abate such place by taking possession thereof and de- 
 stroying all intoxicating liquors found therein, together with all signs, 
 screens, bars, bottles, glasses, and other property used in keeping and 
 maintaining said nuisance: and the owner or keeper thereof shall, 
 upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of maintaining a common nui- 
 sance, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100, nor more 
 than $500, and by imprisonment in the county jail not less than thirty 
 days nor more than ninety days. The Attorney-General, County 
 Attorney, or any citizen of Me county where such nuisance exists, or 
 is kept, or is maintained, may maintain an action in the name of the 
 State to abate and perpetually enjoin the same. The injunction shall 
 be granted at the commencement of the action, and no bond shall be 
 required. Any person violating the termsof anyinjunction granted in 
 such proceeding, shall be punished as for contempt, by a fine of not 
 less than $100 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment in the county 
 jail not less than thirty days nor more than six months, or by both 
 such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court." 
 
214 APPENDIX. 
 
 It is contended in the case of Kansas ?\ Ziebold & Hagelin, that the 
 entire scheme of this section is an attempt to deprive persons who 
 come within its provisions of their property and of their liberty with- 
 out due process of law; especially, when taken in connection with 
 that clause of Section 14 (amendatory of Section 21 of the Act of 1881) 
 which provides that "in prosecutions under this act, by indictmentor 
 otherwise ... it shall not be necessary in the first instance for 
 the State to prove that the party charged did not have a permit to sell 
 intoxicating liquors for the excepted purposes." 
 
 We are unable to perceive anything in these regulations inconsist. 
 ent with the constitutional guarantees of liberty and property. The 
 State having authority to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors for other than medical, scientific, and mechanical 
 purposes, we do not doubt her power to declare that any place, kept 
 and maintained for the illegal manufacture and sale of such liquors, 
 shall be deemed a common nuisance, and be abated, and at the same 
 time to provide for the indictment and trial of the offender. One is a 
 proceeding against the property used for forbidden purposes, while the 
 other is for the punishment of the offender. 
 
 It is said that by the thirteenth section of the Act of 1885, the Legis- 
 lature, finding a brewery within the State in actual operation, without 
 notice, trial, or hearing, by the mere exercise of its arbitrary caprice, 
 declares it to be a common nuisance, and then prescribes the conse- 
 quences which are to follow inevitably by judicial mandate required 
 by the statute, and involving and permitting the exercise of no judi- 
 cial discretion or judgment; that, the brewery being found in opera- 
 tion, the court is not to determine whether it is a common nuisance, 
 but, under the command of the statute, is to find it to be one ; that it is 
 not the liquor made, or the making of it, which is thus enacted to be 
 a common nuisance, but the place itself, including all the 
 property used in keeping and maintaining the common 
 nuisance; that the judge, having thus signed without inquiry, 
 and it may be against the fact and against his own 
 judgment, the edict of the Legislature, the court is commanded by its 
 officers to take possession of the place and shut it up; nor is all this 
 destruction of property, by legislative edict, to be made as a forfeiture 
 consequent upon conviction of any offence, but merely because the 
 Legislature so commands ; and it is done by a court of equity, without 
 any previous conviction first had, or any trial known to the law. 
 
 This, certainly, is a formidable arraignment of the legislation of 
 Kansas, and if it were founded upon a just interpretation of her star 
 utes, the court would have no difficulty in declaring that they could 
 not be enforced without infringing the constitutional rights of theciti" 
 zen. 
 
 But these statutes have no such scope and are not attended with 
 any such results as the defendants suppose. The court is not required 
 to give effect to a legislative " decree " or " edict," unless every enact- 
 ment by the law-making power of a State is to be so characterized. 
 
APPENDIX. 215 
 
 It is not declared that every establishment is to be deemed a com- 
 mon nuisance, because it may have been maintained prior to the pas- 
 sage of the statute as a place for manufacturing intoxicating liquors. 
 The statute is prospective iy its operation that is, it does not put the 
 brand of a common nuisance upon any place, unless, after its passage, 
 that place is kept and maintained for purposes declared by the Legis- 
 lature to be injurious to the community. Nor is the court required to 
 adjudge any place to be a common nuisance simply because it is 
 charged by the State to be such. It must first find it to be of that 
 character that is, must ascertain, in some legal mode, whether, since 
 the statute was passed, the place in question has been, or is being so 
 used, as would make it a common nuisance. 
 
 Equally tenable is the proposition that proceedings in equity for the 
 purposes indicated in the thirteenth section of the statute are incon- 
 sistent with due process of law. 
 
 " In regard to public nuisances," Mr. Justice Story says, " the juris- 
 diction of courts of equity seems to be of a very ancient date, and has 
 been distinctly traced back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The 
 jurisdiction is applicable not only to public nuisances, strictly so 
 called, but also to purprestures upon public rights and property. 
 In case of public nuisances properly so called, an indictment lies 
 to abate them, and to punish the offenders. But an information also 
 lies in equity to redress the grievance by way of injunction." 2 Story's 
 Eq., sections 921, 922. 
 
 The ground of this jurisdiction in cases of purpresture, as well as of 
 pub! ic nuisances, is the ability of courts of equity to give a more speedy, 
 effectual, and permanent remedy than can be had at law. They can 
 not only prevent nuisances that are threatened, and before irrepar- 
 ble mischief ensues, but arrest or abate those in progress, and by per- 
 petual injunction, protect the public against them in the future ; where- 
 as courts of law can only reach existing nuisances, leaving future acts 
 to be the subject of new prosecutions or proceedings. This is a salu- 
 tary jurisdiction, especially where a nuisance affects the health, mor- 
 als or safety of the community. Though not frequently exercised, the 
 power undoubtedly exists in courts of equity thus to protect the pub- 
 lic against injury: District Attorney v. Lynn and Boston R. R. Co., 16 
 Gray, 245; Att'y Gen'l v. N. J. Railroad, 3 Green's Ch. 139; Att'y Gen- 
 eral v. Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 244; State v. Mayor, 5 Porter (Ala.), 279, 
 294; Hoole v. Att'y General, 22 Ala. 194; Att'y General v. Hunter, 1 
 Dev. Eq. 13; Att'y Gen'l v. Forbes, 2 Mylne & Craig, 123, 129, 133; Att'y 
 Gen'l v. Great Northern Railway Co., 1 Dr. & Sin. 161 ; Eden on Injunc- 
 tions, 259; Kerr on Injunctions (2d Ed.), 168. 
 
 As to the objection that the statute makes no provision for a jury 
 irial in cases like this one, it is sufficient to say that such a mode of 
 trial is not required in suits in equity brought to enjoin a public nui- 
 sance. The statutory direction that an injunction issue at the com- 
 mencement of the action is not to be constructed as dispensing with 
 preliminary proof as is necessary to authorize an injunction 
 
216 APPENDIX. 
 
 pending the suit. The court is not to issue an injunction simply be- 
 cause one is asked, or because the charge is made that a common nui- 
 sance is maintained in violation of law. The statute leaves the court 
 at liberty to give effect to the principle that an injunction will not be 
 granted to restrain a nuisance, except upon clear and satisfactory evi- 
 dence that one exists. Here the fact to be ascertained was, not 
 whether a place, kept and maintained for the purposes forbidden by 
 the statute, was, per se, a nuisance that fact being conclusively de- 
 termined by the statute itself but whether the place in question was 
 so kept and maintained. If the proof upon that point is not full or 
 sufficient, the court can refuse an injunction, or postpone action until 
 the State first obtains the verdict of a jury in her favor. 
 
 In this case, it cannot be denied that the defendants kept and main- 
 tained a place that is within the statutory definition of a common nui- 
 sance. Their petition for the removal of the cause from the State 
 court, and their answer to the bill, admitted every tact necessary to 
 maintain this suit, if the statute under which it was brought was con- 
 stitutional. 
 
 Touching the provision that in prosecutions, by indictment or other- 
 wise, the State need not, in the first instance, prove that the defendant 
 has the permit required by the the statute, we may remark that, if it 
 has any application to a proceeding like this, it does not deprive him 
 of the presumption that he is innocent of any violation of law. It is 
 only a declaration that when the State has proved that the place de- 
 scribed is kept and maintained for the manufacture or sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors such manufacture or sale being unlawful except for 
 specified purposes, and then only under a permit the prosecution 
 need not prove a negative, namely, that the defendant has not the re- 
 quired license or permit. If the defendant has such license or permit, 
 he can easily produce it, and thus overthrow the prima facie case es- 
 tablished by the State. 
 
 A portion of the argument in behalf of the defendants is to the effect 
 that the statutes of Kansas forbid the manufacture of intoxicating 
 liquors to be exported, or to be carried to other States, and upon that 
 ground are repugnant to the clauseof the Constitution of the United 
 Statesgiving Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations 
 and among the several States. We need only say, upon this point, 
 that there is no intimation in the record that the beer which the re- 
 spective defendants manufactured was intended to be carried out of 
 the State or to foreign countries. And, without expressing an opinion 
 as to whether such facts would have constituted a good defence, we 
 observe that it will be time enough to decide a case of that character 
 when it shall come before us. 
 
 For the reasons stated, we are of opinion that the judgments of the 
 Supreme Court of Kansas have not denied to Mugler, the plaintiff in 
 error, any right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, and its judgment, iu each case, is accord- 
 ingly affirmed, 
 
APPENDIX. 217 
 
 We are, also, of opinion that the Circuit Court of the United States 
 erred in dismissing the bill of the State against Ziebold & Hagelin. 
 The decree in that case is reversed and the cause remanded, with di- 
 rections to enter a decree granting to the State such relief as the Act 
 of March 7, 1885, authorizes. 
 
 It is so ordered. 
 
NOTE B. 
 
 POLICE STATISTICS FOR FIFTY-EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES. 
 
 1ST 
 
 C/TIBS. 
 
 Little Rock 
 
 Hannibal 
 
 Austin 
 
 Bloomington 
 
 Kockford. 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 Brockton 
 
 Aurora 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Peoria 
 
 Quiucy 
 
 Springfield (111.) 
 
 Wheeling 
 
 Boston 
 
 Chelsea .'.... 
 
 Grand Rapids , 
 
 Detroit 
 
 East Saginaw 
 
 Haverhill 
 
 Lowell 
 
 Saginaw 
 
 Waltham 
 
 Holyoke 
 
 Covington 
 
 Hartford 
 
 New Britain 
 
 New Haven 
 
 New London 
 
 Newport (Ky.) 
 
 Norwich 
 
 Racine 
 
 Savannah 
 
 Waterbury 
 
 Fall River 
 
 New Albany (Ind.). 
 
 New Bedford 
 
 Ogdensburg (N. Y.) 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 Evansville 
 
 Lafayette 
 
 Wilmington 
 
 Yonkers 
 
 Poughkeepsie 
 
 Binghampton ... 
 
 Brooklyn 
 
 New York 
 
 Paterson 
 
 Baltimore 
 
 Allentown 
 
 Cumberland 
 
 Jersey City 
 
 Memphis 
 
 Orange 
 
 Syracuse 
 
 C'ohoes 
 
 Albany 
 
 Hoboken 
 
 Scranton 
 
 II 
 
 M Sg 
 
 r* : i 
 
 : : o 
 
 : : s 
 
 : c? 
 
 310 50 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 225 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 190 
 
 150 
 
 150 
 
 150 
 
 125 
 
 125 
 
 125 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 95 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 
 5075 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 30 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 47 25,877 550 
 
 a 1 } 16,502 471 
 
 52 23,000 443 
 
 52 22,000 423 
 
 24 19,500 812 
 
 1,600 500.000 375 
 
 18 20,783 154 
 
 37 19.000 514 
 
 3,760 800,000 212 
 
 150 33,000 220 
 
 103 34,500 335 
 
 112 30,000 268 
 
 130 32,000 246 
 
 2,695 390,406 145 
 
 30 25,709 857 
 
 150 50,000 306 
 
 1,026 133,209 130 
 
 187 29,1 41 155 
 
 84 21,795 259 
 
 430 64,051 149 
 
 62 13,267 232 
 
 8 14,609 1.824 
 
 120 27,894 232 
 
 180 35,000 104 
 
 300 45,000 150 
 
 106 17.000 160 
 
 350 70,000 200 
 
 59 12,000 203 
 
 118 20,500 173 
 
 90 15,112 168 
 
 96 19.636 204 
 
 225 45,000 200 
 
 194 26,000 134 
 
 358 58 863 164 
 
 62 20,000 322 
 
 63 33,393 530 
 41 11,000 268 
 
 1,928 225,000 168 
 
 78 40,000 533 
 
 236 21,000 89 
 
 211 42,478 201 
 
 136 20,OoO 147 
 
 82 20,207 246 
 
 141 22,361 158 
 
 3,080 1800,000 266 
 
 9.199 1,350,000 147 
 
 600 70,000 116 
 
 2,250 365,000 162 
 
 24 25,000 1,042 
 
 75 12,000 160 
 
 1,056 153.513 146 
 
 200 60,000 300 
 
 94 15,231 162 
 
 530 77,000 145 
 
 155 21.426 145 
 
 893 96.336 108 
 
 338 37,721 112 
 
 100 65,000 650 
 
 457 
 
 5,802 
 
 892 
 
 736 
 
 796 
 
 211 
 
 1.968 
 
 1587 
 
 2,367 
 
 1,997 1,455 
 123 95 
 945 807 
 90 
 
 f224 
 5,324 2,803 
 
 863 385 
 
 227 
 1,315 
 
 624 
 
 230 
 
 638 
 383 
 174 
 566 
 
 16,582 12.044 
 31,237 18,198 
 1,974 827 
 20,649 8,247 
 216 112 
 423 392 
 4.287 1,572 
 2,253 1,074 
 547 354 
 
 2.304 1,609 
 404 144 
 
 2,610 1,867 
 
 1.305 566 
 972 914 
 
 Total 
 
 34,5145,315,777 304,279217,580 
 
 * for drunkenness and disorderly conduct, f For nine moutus only. J Based on 
 official estimates of one year ago. Based on increase from 1870 to 1880. 
 
APPENDIX. 219 
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 The following is the process by which can be computed the number 
 of persons in each of the four classes "temperate drinkers," "careless 
 drinkers," "free drinkers," and "habitually intemperate," in England 
 and Wales. 
 
 We know the total number of deaths of males over 25 years to be, by 
 the offlicial reports, 261,066. 
 
 We know also the number of deaths of males over 25 years of age in 
 each class to have been (approximately) 101,430, 69,111, 40,163, and 
 40,263 respectively. If we had the rate of mortality in each class, it 
 would be a simple thing, of course, to compute from the number of 
 deaths the number of the living. But we have only the comparative 
 rate of morality from the report of the British Medical Association, as 
 follows: 
 
 TABLE IX. AVERAGE AGE AT DEATH FOR EACH CLASS. 
 
 Class A 51.22 years. 
 
 " AB 56.72 " 
 
 B 62.13 " 
 
 44 BC 62.42 " 
 
 C 59.67 " 
 
 44 CD 60.35 " 
 
 44 D 57.59 ' 
 
 " DE 53.64 " 
 
 E f>203 " 
 
 Unclassified 60.91 " 
 
 In this table classes A, B, C, D, and E represent respectively the 
 total abstainers, the temperate drinkers, the careless drinkers, the free 
 drinkers, and the habitually intemperate. When there was doubt in 
 which of two classes to place the death, it was referred to one of the 
 subordinate classes AB, BC, CD, or DE. For instance, if there was 
 doubt whether the man belonged to Class B or Class C he was put in Class 
 BC. The number of deaths in each of these classes was as follows: 
 
 Class A 122 deaths. 
 
 " AB 54 " 
 
 B 1529 " 
 
 " BC 178 " 
 
 C 977 " 
 
 44 CD 112 " 
 
 " D 547 " 
 
 44 DE 100 44 
 
 E 603 44 
 
 Unclassified 12 " 
 
 Total ... 4234 44 
 
220 
 
 Counting one-half the cases in Class DEas belonging to Class E, 
 obtain the average age at death for this class as follows. 
 
 50 X 53.64= 2,682.00 
 603 X 52.03=31,374.09 
 
 653 X 52.15=34,056.09 
 
 This gives us 52.15 years as the average age at death for the 653 cases 
 MI K and half DE. To obtain the age for all the classes outside E and 
 one-half DE we have the following figures: 
 
 122X51.22= 6,248.84 
 
 54X56.72= 3,062.88 
 1529 X 62.13=94,996.77 
 178X62.42=11,110.76 
 922X59.67=58,297.59 
 112 X 60.35= 6,759.20 
 547X57.59=31,501.73 
 
 50X53.64= 2,682.00 
 
 12X60.91= 730.92 
 
 3581X60.15=215,390.69 
 
 This gives us, as the average age at death of persons outside Class 
 E, 60.15 years, and those in Class E, 52.15 years. As the comparison be- 
 gan at the 25th year, we find that those in Class E live, on an average, 
 27.15 years beyond that point, and those ouside.Class E, 35.15 years, or 
 8 years longer. 
 
 Let X = number living in all classes except Class E. 
 
 Let y = yearly death-rate for all " " " " 
 
 As the number of males over 25 years of age is about 21.5 per cent, 
 of total population, 32,250 will be the number of males over 25 years in 
 a population of 150,000. 
 
 32,250 - X = number living in Class E. 
 
 y+8-35y = yearly death-rate " " " 
 
 X y = one third of 3581, = 1194 
 
 (y+8-35 y ) (32,250 X) = 217 , from which we get 
 y = .0424, death-rate outside Class E. 
 
 X= 28,160, number persons " " " 
 
 y+8-35 y = .052+ death-rate in Class E. 
 
 3225 X= 4090, number persons" " " 
 
 If in a population of 150,000 there are 4,090 habitual intemperate 
 drinkers, in a population of 27,870,586 the number of such persons will 
 be 759,922. 
 
 Computing in the same manner the number of persons in Class D 
 (including one-half CD and one-half DE) we find it to be 4,865 in a 
 population of 150,000 or, in the entire Nation, 903,917. 
 
APPEOTLX. 
 
 221 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 COMMITMENTS TO JAIL FOB CRIME IN CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Compiled from Official Returns and Jail Records, by E. P. Augur, 
 Midtlletown, conn. 
 
 T 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 E.| 
 YEAB f?^ 
 
 ('Drunkenness 
 1 Coin. Drunka 
 Mod. Printers 
 "Habitually 
 temperate. . 
 
 || 
 
 O 3 
 
 2 
 
 IM.uishiuglite 
 Resisting Office 
 
 As'lt with Inter 
 Kill, Murder 
 
 JThcft or Larce 
 
 (Setting Fires 
 
 Arson 
 [Vagrancy 
 
 Burglary. 
 
 n 
 
 S 
 
 MO* 
 
 S3 
 
 O 
 
 HH 
 
 H 
 
 
 : o 
 
 -a aS 
 
 Is 
 
 2 r- 
 
 P <n- 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 1 i 
 
 9F& 
 
 
 
 ? : 
 
 c-S 
 
 ; 
 
 
 S 
 
 : 
 
 * 
 
 PH 
 
 i i 
 
 JD 
 
 1852 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 6 
 
 1853... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 rt 
 
 1854... 1,116 
 
 641 
 
 179 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 Io7 
 
 17 
 
 10 
 
 41 
 
 94 
 
 
 
 1855... 1,248 
 
 600 
 
 204 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 128 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 36 
 
 116 
 
 p"< 
 
 {3 
 
 18 6... 1,387 
 
 478 
 
 318 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 256 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 25 
 
 28 
 
 r : 
 
 ^ 
 
 1857... 1,897 
 
 6G4 
 
 451 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 301 
 
 29 
 
 14 
 
 73 
 
 13 
 
 ^i 
 
 9 
 
 1858... 1.787 
 
 617 
 
 471 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 3.2 
 
 
 14 
 
 85 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 S. 
 
 1859... 1.7J3 
 
 733 
 
 419 
 
 1 
 
 14 
 
 332 
 
 43 
 
 8 
 
 84 
 
 8 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1860... 1,825 
 
 763 
 
 891 
 
 ... 
 
 27 
 
 346 
 
 45 
 
 6 
 
 02 
 
 18 
 
 *? 
 
 ~ 
 
 1861... 2.0.9 
 
 672 
 
 457 
 
 ... 
 
 9 
 
 881 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 71 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 ff 
 
 . 1662... 1.5 8 
 
 4-3 
 
 325 
 
 ... 
 
 7 
 
 190 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 
 1 
 
 I"H 
 
 B 
 
 3 1863... 1,508 
 
 615 
 
 243 
 
 
 13 
 
 28: 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 25 
 
 ...... 
 
 
 ,E 
 
 5 1864... 1,193 
 
 831 
 
 202 
 
 
 6 
 
 166 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 42 
 
 
 W 
 
 1865... 1,583 
 
 879 
 
 245 
 
 "16 
 
 17 
 
 386 
 
 62 
 
 6 
 
 60 
 
 1 
 
 z 
 
 T 
 
 I8i6... 1,827 
 
 637 
 
 273 
 
 8 
 
 to 
 
 44U 
 
 67 
 
 12 
 
 64 
 
 4 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 
 ,1867... 1,693 
 
 '44 
 
 275 
 
 16 
 
 -49 
 
 325 
 
 -63 
 
 6 
 
 96 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1868... 1,821 
 
 675 
 
 280 
 
 15 
 
 81 
 
 37-i 
 
 75 
 
 14 
 
 71 
 
 2 
 
 js 
 
 
 1869... 2,246 
 
 1.992 842 
 
 428 
 
 28 
 
 85 
 
 382 
 
 62 
 
 9 
 
 101 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 1ft 70... 2,593 
 
 2,870 1.050 
 
 202 
 
 62 
 
 40 
 
 408 
 
 97 
 
 6 
 
 66 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 
 1871... 2,806 
 
 2.658 1,2*0 
 
 33.) 
 
 81 
 
 61 
 
 887 
 
 110 
 
 6 
 
 78 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 .1872.. 2,985 
 
 2,718 1,470 
 
 447 38 _3l 
 
 315 
 
 164 
 
 8 60 27 
 
 cent. 
 
 ff 
 
 IT* 1873... 4,481 
 r" 1874... 4,448 
 
 4,06 2,125 
 8.712 2.044 
 
 694 
 661 
 
 63 
 73 
 
 29 
 45 
 
 582 
 564 
 
 170 
 214 
 
 13 
 19 
 
 1(13 
 117 
 
 14 
 19 
 
 16. 
 
 2 
 
 &s 2 1 75 4 425 
 
 4294 2 175 
 
 734 
 
 62 
 
 88 
 
 498 
 
 28' 
 
 9 
 
 132 
 
 24 
 
 J> 
 
 g 1 
 
 <i 
 
 1 jg I876t- 8,103 
 c 1877. ..4,149 
 
 2,8. 4 : ,347 
 *2,928 i.734 
 
 8il 
 
 671 
 
 84 
 49 
 
 80 
 28 
 
 284 
 
 428 
 
 149 
 193 
 
 19 
 24 
 
 85 
 158 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "L 
 
 1878... 4,577 
 -5. 18791.. 3,834 
 ~o> 1880 .4,142 
 
 4.453 *,14l 
 8,701 1 6^8 
 *3, 84 1,827 
 
 672 
 496 
 534 
 
 60 
 46 
 
 43 
 41 
 24 
 
 513 
 373 
 423 
 
 279 
 221 
 160 
 
 12 
 J18 
 12 
 
 172 
 125 
 130 
 
 14 
 33 
 
 g 
 
 DC 
 
 a 1881... 4332 
 
 *4.089 2,226 
 
 617 
 
 100 
 
 48 
 
 252 
 
 140 
 
 8 
 
 124 
 
 25 
 
 ?3 
 
 
 5 1882... 4.8J5 
 
 *4.656 2.612 
 
 606 
 
 87 
 
 41 
 
 875 
 
 202 
 
 17 
 
 107 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 2,1883... 5.394 
 
 4,797 2,747 
 
 937 
 
 93 
 
 81 
 
 433 
 
 266 
 
 10 
 
 159 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 9 w!884... 0,8 ri 6 
 
 6.078 2,879 
 
 961 
 
 100 
 
 
 460 
 
 368 
 
 9 
 
 151 
 
 23 
 
 
 t!876, eight months, April 1 to December 1- 
 iTramp Law went into effect, 
 iteturus iueoui^lttfl on tliia bead. 
 
222 APPETOIX, 
 
 NOTE E, 
 GOVERNOR MARTIN'S LKTTEB. 
 
 On the 12th of July, 1&S7, Governor Martin, of Kansas, sent to the As- 
 sociated Press the following letter: 
 
 WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, General Manager Associated Press: My 
 Dear Sir On Hie 2d of July instant a special dispatch was sent from 
 St. Joseph, Mo., to a Chicago paper, in which it was stated that "'the 
 closing of the saloons in Atchison, Kan., has cut off the most profit- 
 able source of revenue, amouutingto thousands of dollars a year, and, 
 as a result, the city has not revenue to keep goirg; that the police 
 force, with the exception of the Marshal and one policeman, had been 
 suspended: that the services of the firemen were to be dispensed with, 
 and that the gas and electric lights were to be shut off." 
 
 This dispatch was utilized by the Associated Press, and thus pub- 
 lished in all parts of the country. As a result, I have received many 
 letters from different sections making inquiry as to the truth of state- 
 ments it embodied, and have seen its alleged facts commented on in 
 dozens of newspapers, as evidence that the abolition of saloons has 
 reduced a prosperous city in Kansas to the verge of bankruptcy. Sim- 
 ilar letters have been received by the Mayor of Atchisou, and by many 
 other cities of Kansas. 
 
 The dispatch referred to was prompted by two motives. It was first 
 sent from a town in Missouri for the purpose of injuring a rival city 
 in Kansas ; and second, it was inspired by the whisky interest, and in- 
 tended to create the impression that an efficient city government 
 could not be maintained without the revenue derived from liquor li- 
 censes. The city of Atchison has been for many years one of the most 
 important railroad and commercial centres of Kansas. It has a popu- 
 lation of about 23,000 people. If the whisky interest could create the 
 impression that Achison had been materially Injured because the sa- 
 loons had been driven out of it, a serious blow would be dealt the tern- 
 ptrance cause. The Associated Press, in giving thin false special such 
 wide publicity, was made the unconscious agent of a malicious slan- 
 derer, whose purposes were as unworthy as his statements unfounded, 
 I deem it my duty to correct the false impressions thus created, and 
 respectfully ask that this letter be given as wide a publication as the 
 dispatch which prompts it. 
 
 I am thoroughly familiar with the condition of the city of Atchison, 
 and personally know that the statements embodied in the St. Joseph 
 dispatch are false and misleading. The gas, electric lights, and water 
 supply of the city have never been turned off. Its fire department has 
 been and is continuously on duty. Its police force has been largely 
 reduced, but has, in the absence of the saloons, been am pie to preserve 
 the peace and protect the property of its citizens. A local dispute con- 
 cerning methods of taxation and involving the adoption of a tax whiob 
 has been collected in the city of St. Joseph for many years past, is the 
 
APPENDIX. 223 
 
 only foundation for the malicious and untruthful dispatch from that 
 place. 
 
 Atchison abolished the last of its saloons in the fall of 1886. The 
 whisky interests prophesied that this action would seriously injure 
 the business of the city. It has had no such effect. Atchison is more 
 prosperous to-day than it has been for many years past. Its wholesale 
 trade aggregated over $40,000,000 in 1886, and during the first six 
 months of 1887 this trade increased fully 33 per cent, over that for the 
 corresponding six months of 1886. All the principal streets of the city 
 are now being paved. 
 
 More substantial improvements are being made and more buildings 
 are being erected in Atchison this year than during any previous year 
 in its history. Ten Important lines of railway centre in the city, and 
 fche Southern Kansas Railway has just extended its line to Atchisoc, 
 The central shops of the Missouri Pacific road have recently been lo- 
 cated there ; the largest lumber yard in the West has recently been 
 established there, and many other important commercial and manufac- 
 turing industries have been located there during the past six months. 
 Better than all, too, hundreds of thousands of dollars that were form- 
 erly wasted in the saloons are now expended in feeding and clothing 
 and housing the people, and as a result housands of wives and chil- 
 dren in Atchison who were living in poverty a few years ago are now 
 prosperous, happy and contented. 
 
 This St. Soseph dispatch is only <v fair specimen of hundreds of false 
 and malicious statements I have seen published in the newspapers of 
 the country during -the past three or four years concerning Kansas 
 and Kansas towns. The whisky interests predicted that the abolition 
 of saloons in Kansas would injuriously affect the n>txterial prosperity 
 of the State, and falsehoods, intended to confirm tnis view, are con- 
 stantly invented and circulated in every section of the country, and 
 especially in States where movements are being made to banish the 
 saloons. I am receiving letters daily from different States, making 
 inquiries concerning the effects and results of our temperance laws on 
 the financial, commercial and other material interests of our State, 
 and these letters all indicate that the work of maligning Kansas is go- 
 ing on in every section of the country. Permit me, therefore, to give 
 you the real facts. 
 
 The Prohibition Amendment to our Constitution was adopted in the 
 autumn of 1880, and the first laws to enforce it went into effect in May, 
 1881. The war to banish the saloons was for some years only partially 
 successful. The Amendment had been adopted by a very meagre 
 majority, and the public sentiment in all our larger cities was over- 
 whelmingly against it. AS late as January, 1885, saloons were open in 
 fully thirty of the larger cities of Kansas, including Topeka, the cap- 
 ital of the State. 
 
 But steadily and surely the public sentiment against them spread and 
 intensified. The small majority that had voted for the Amendment 
 was reinforced first by those law-respecting citizens who are always 
 
224 APPENDIX. 
 
 willing to subordinate their personal opinions to the majesty of law, and 
 second, by an equally large number, who, observing the practical re- 
 sults following the abolition of saloons In different cities and towns, 
 became convinced that Kansas would be a more prosperous, happy, 
 and'in all respects a better community of people if it had not an open 
 saloon within its borders. So the sentiment of Kansas against the 
 liquor traffic has grown and strengthened until to-day I very much 
 doubt whether, of its 300,000 male voters, more than 75,000 would, if 
 they could, invite back and reinstate the saloon. 
 
 One argument of the whisky interest, viz., that saloons promote the 
 prosperity and growth of communities, lias been answered in Kansas 
 by the convincing logic of facts. In 18so the population of this State, 
 as shown by the census, was 996,096; in March, 1886. as shown by the 
 State census, it was 1,406,738. and it is now fully 1.650,000. In 1880 Kan- 
 sas had only 3,104 miles of railroads within her borders; on the 1st of 
 March last the State Board of Railroad Assessors reported 6.208 miles 
 for taxation, and from 600 to 800 miles will be added to this aggregate 
 before the close of the year. In 1880 the assessed value of all real and 
 personal property of the State aggregated only $160,891,689; on the 1st 
 of March, 1886, the total was, $277.575,363; and for tne present iiscal 
 year the returns thus far received indicate a total of $300,000,000. In 
 1880 there were 5,315 schoolhouses, 2.914 churches and 347 newspapers 
 in Kansas; there are now fully 8,500 schoolhouses, 3.500 churches and 
 700 newspapers. In 1880 only 55 towns and cities had 
 populations in excess of 1,000 each; in 1887 more than 200 towns 
 have each over 1000 inhabitants; fully 25 have each over 5,000, and 4 have 
 each over 20,000. In 1830 only 8. 8r>8,( 00 acres were planted in crops; 
 th'ls year the area planted exceeds lfi.000.000 acres. In 1880 the values 
 of the farm products of Kansas wasonlyS84.521.000; for 1886 their value 
 was over $264.'!00,00u. For the fiscal year 1880 the percentage of State 
 taxation was 5 1-2 mills; for the present fiscal year the total percent- 
 age levied for all State purposes is only 4 1-2 mills. 
 
 During the past two years and a half I have organized seventeen 
 counties In the western section of the State, and census-takers have 
 been appointed for four other counties, leaving only two counties re- 
 maining to be organized. The cities and towns of Kansas, with hardly 
 an exception, have kept pace in growth and prosperity with this mar- 
 vellous development of the State. Many of them have doubled their 
 population during the past year. And it is a remarkable fact that sev- 
 eral cities and towns languished or stood still until they abolished 
 their saloons, and from that date to the present time their growth and 
 prosperity has equalled, and in some instances surpassed, that of 
 other places with equal natural advantages. 
 
 Summing up, the facts of the census confute and confound those who 
 assert that the material prosperity of any community is promoted by 
 the presence of saloons. So far as Kansas and all her cities and towns 
 are concerned, the 'reverse of this assertion is true. The most wonder- 
 ful era of prosperity, of material, moral and intellectual development, 
 
APPENDIX. 225 
 
 of growth In country, cities and towns, ever witnessed on the Ameri- 
 can Continent Jias been illustrated in Kansas during the six years 
 since the temperance amendment to our Constitution was adopted, 
 and especially during the past two years, the period of its most ener- 
 getic and complete enforcement. 
 Yours very respectfully, JOHN A. MARTI*. 
 
 NOTE F. 
 
 The "Bowman decision" of the United States Supreme Court was 
 rendered March 19, 1888. Briefly stated, the facts in the case were as 
 follows. George A. Bowman and Fred. W. Bowman were brewers do- 
 Ing business in Marshalltown, Iowa. May 20, 1886, they offered 5000 
 barrels of beer to the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., for trans- 
 portation from Chicago to Marshalltown. The railway refused to trans- 
 port the beer because of a clause in the Iowa law forbidding all lines 
 of transportation to bring beer into the State unless a permit lias been 
 given by the auditor of the county to which the beer was destined. 
 The Bowman Bros, brought suit for damages against the railway. 
 The United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois 
 decided in favor of the defendant. The case was appealed to the 
 United States Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the 
 circuit Court and found for the plaintiffs on the ground that this sec. 
 tion of thelowa law was unconstitutional. Following is tlie decision in 
 pare: 
 
 "It Is conceded, as we have already shown, that for the purposes pf 
 its policy a State has legislative control, exclusive of Congress, wltfim 
 its territory of all persons, things and transactions of strictly internal 
 concern For the purpose of protecting its people against the evils of 
 intemperance it has the right to prohibit the manufacture within Its 
 limits of intoxicating liquors; it may also prohibit all domestic com- 
 merce in them between its own inhabitants, whether the articles are 
 introduced from other States or from foreign countries; it may punish 
 those who sell them in violation of its laws; it may adopt any meas- 
 ures tending, even indirectly and remotely, to make the policy effec. 
 tive until it passes the line of power delegated to Congress under the 
 Constitution.. It cannot, without the consent of Congress, expressed 
 w implied, regulate commerce between its people and those of the 
 jther States of the Union in order to effect its end, however desirable 
 inch a regulation might be. 
 
 "The statute of Iowa under consideration falls within this prohibi- 
 tion. It is not an inspection law; it is not a quarantine or sanitary 
 /aw. It is essentially a regulation of commerce among the States 
 within any definition heretofore given to that term, or which can be 
 given ; and although its motive and purpose are to perfect the policy 
 &f the State of Iowa in protecting its citizens against the evils of 
 
 25 
 
226 - APPENDIX. 
 
 Intemperance, It is none the less on that account a regulation of com- 
 merce. If it had extended its provisions so as to prohibit the Introduc- 
 tion into the State from foreign countries of all importations of intoxi- 
 cating liquors produced abroad, no one would doubt the nature of the 
 provision as a regulation of foreign commerce. Its nature is not 
 changed by its application to commerce among the States. 
 
 "Can It be supposed that by omitting any express declarations on 
 the subject Congress has intended to submit to the several States the 
 decision of the question in each locality of what shall and what shall 
 not be articles of traffic in the Inter-State commerce of the country? 
 If so It has left to each State, according to Its own caprice and arbi- 
 trary will to discriminate for or against every article grown, produced, 
 manufactured or sold in any State and sought to be introduced as an 
 article of commerce into any other. If the State of Iowa may prohibit 
 the importation of intoxicating liquors from all other States It may 
 also include tobacco, or any other article, the use or abuse of which it 
 may deem deleterious. It may not choose even to be governed by con- 
 siderations growing out of the health, comfort, or peace of the commu- 
 nity. Its policy may be directed to other ends. It may choose to 
 establish a system directed to the promotion and benefit of Its own 
 agriculture, manufactures or arts of any description, and prevent the 
 introduction and sale within its limits of any or of all articles that it 
 may select as coining into competition with those which It seeks to 
 protect. The police power of the Stare would extend to such cases, as 
 well as to those in which It was sought to legislate in behalf of the 
 health, peace, and morals of the people. In view of the commercial 
 anarchy and confusion that would result from the diverse exertions of 
 power by the several States of the Union.it cannot be supposed that 
 the Constitution or Congress have intended to limit the freedom of 
 commercial intercourse among the people of the several States. * * * * 
 
 "It may be said, however, that the right of the State to restrict or 
 prohibit sales of intoxicating liquor within itslimits, conceded to exist 
 as a part of Its police power, implies the right to prohibit its importa- 
 tion, because the latter is necessary to the effectual axercise of the 
 former. The argument is that a prohibition of the sale cannot be made 
 effective, except by preventing the introduction of the subject of the 
 sale; that if its entrance Into the State is permitted, the traffic in it can- 
 not be suppressed. But the right to prohibit sales, so far as conceded 
 to the States, arises only afterthe act of transportation has terminated, 
 because the sales which the State may forbid are of things within Its 
 jurisdiction. Its power over them does not begin to operate until 
 they are brought within the territorial limits which circumscribe it. It 
 might be very convenient and useful in the execution of the policy of 
 Prohibition within the State to extend the powers of the State beyotd 
 its territorial limits. But such extra-territorial powers cannot be as- 
 sumed upon such an implication. On the contrary, the nature of the 
 
APFENDIX, 227 
 
 case contradicts their existence. For if they belong to one State, they 
 belong to all, and cannot be exercised severally and independently. 
 The attempt would necessarily produce that conflict and confusion 
 which it was the very purpose of the Constitution by its delegations of 
 national power to prevent. 
 
 " It is easier to think that the right of importation from abroad and 
 of transportation from one State to another includes, by necessary im- 
 plication, the right of the importer to sell in unbroken packages at the 
 place where the transit terminates for the very purpose and motive of 
 that branch of commerce which consists in transportation, is that 
 other and consequent act of commerce which consists in the sale and 
 exchange of the commodities transported. Such indeed was the point 
 decided iu the case of Brown V. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, as to 
 foreign commerce, with the express statement, in the opinion of Chief- 
 Justice Marshall, that the conclusion would be the same in a case of 
 commerce among the States. But it is not necessary now to express 
 any opinion upon the point, because that question does not arise In the 
 present case. The precise line which divides the transaction, so far 
 as it belongs to foreign or Inter-State commerce, from the Internal and 
 domestic commerce of the State, we are not now called upon to 
 delineate. It is enough to say, that the power to regulate or forbid the 
 sale of a commodity, after It has been brought into the State, does not 
 carry with it the right and power to prevent Its Introduction by trans- 
 portation from another State." 
 
 Three Justices, waite, Harlan, and Gray, filed a dissenting opinion. 
 


 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 
 REC'P LD 
 
 APR 5 '65 -8 PI 
 
 - 
 it*-' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 LD 
 
 LD 2lA-60m-8,'65 
 
 General Library 
 University of California 
 
 
 
 
 & -. . p M 
 
 ___ 
 
 
 stj APR 25 1963 09 
 
 
 !% 
 
 
 1^; 
 
 
 
 
 <# 
 
 

 P YB 07563 
 
 U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 
 z^ tf i. ,-* 
 
 mm 953: